Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 26	April 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Uğurcan Karagöz

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Butter (disambiguation)

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

Couldn't find a CSD criterion for this, but:

A reader searching for "not butter" looking for margarine is just unlikely.
That just leaves us with a disambiguation between two pages, which is unnecessary- hatnotes exist. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 22:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabieb Sangnual

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

Declined WP:PROD, can find a grand total of one source on this guy is the blog of an organization he is a board member of. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As three-time Southeast Asian champion and runner-up at the Asian Games (i.e. he the second-best boxer in all of Asia) it is very, very, very likely he was covered significantly in his day. Alas, there's no Thai newspaper archive... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Mary, Mother of Our Savior

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

The subject clearly does not meet the WP:GNG (see WP:NCHURCH).

As far as I can see, no reliable indepedent secondary or tertiary source discusses the group as a main topic, but always WP:PASSING (in this case, due to a legal battle).

Therefore, I believe this article should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, United States of America, and New York. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Communist Action

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

Another communist organization that fails WP:GNG. No independent and reliable sources were found except bulletins of communist parties and their spinoffs. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is clearly inherently notable as a successor organization to INITIATIVE, and an organization that has seats within bodies of the EU. This, once again, is the third case of WP:IDONTLIKE that you have proposed. Your point that "no independent and reliable sources were found" is a blatant lie. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both INITIATIVE and this organization fail WP:GNG. There is literally 0 independent/reliable sources about them. If you think that im "blatantly lying", give me reliable and independent sources about this organization. (I doubt you will find any) WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Castroonthemoon, calling a nomination that refers to notability and sourcing an IDONTLIKEIT nom is just aspersive and clearly untrue to anyone with eyes. Cut it out. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"aspersive" but you're clearly just targeting articles you personally don't like using the same rationalization? Castroonthemoon (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how you determine that I am targeting articles I personally don’t like? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no SIGCOV whatsoever, most of the sources didn't even mention the article subject (detailing the dissolution of an earlier org, with no source establishing a direct connection between said dissolution and the establishment of the ECA besides the ECA's own website.) I went ahead and removed the sources that make no mention of the article subject. What remains clearly does not show notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's interesting seeing the exact same two/three users advocating for the same point in the last four deletion discussions, on the discussions for Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties, World Anti-Imperialist Platform, European Communist Action, International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Castroonthemoon (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puh-lease, open a sockpuppet investigation so you’re forced to quit throwing stupid aspersions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A European political alliance of notable parties, which took part of the 2024 European Parliament election.--ElTres (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did the alliance take part in the election, or did its member parties take part? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This questions doesn't make sense if you know how European Parliament elections work. The European political parties and alliances take part via their member parties in nationwide elections. BTW, stating there are no sources after removing such sources is just bad behavior. ElTres (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, I did not remove any sources that mention the article topic.

I understand how EU Parliament elections work, and what I am saying is that a grouping of entities cannot inherit the notability of its entities. If all the sourcing for BRICS were just about each of its constituent states with no independent source even asserting that it exists, and the article for BRICS sourced some estimate of how much of the world’s economy and population BRICS controls to sources that tabulate each constituent state without any recognition of BRICS, that would be original research, and BRICS would not have demonstrated notability. In the case of BRICS, there are many reliable secondary sources that discuss it as an entity. In the case of ECA, there are zero reliable secondary sources that discuss it as an entity. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you understand how European elections work, why did you ask if the alliance or member parties took part? That is the very basis for which they are conducted. Castroonthemoon (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking if the alliance was formally registered or documented anywhere or if it was a completely undocumented grouping as far as the election results go ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask that at all, you started talking about BRICS. Castroonthemoon (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations do not need to register to be a European political alliance, unlike a European political party for instance. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable European Party with seats in the European Parliament and the member parties are notable. OP needs to realize that communist doesnt mean non-notable or non-reliable. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a political party. Re your last point, please name one reliable communist source used in this article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable European political alliance. Julius Schwarz (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is difficult to give much weight to a vote that consists, in its entirety, of the phrase, "Clearly notable". Please see WP:Clearly notable for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Professional Design Firms

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

Organization that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Organizations. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanos Sinos

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

Deprodded without improvement. Current sourcing does not show notability, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of a whopping 11, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find notability in GNG or Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Gbooks link above shows several volumes either citing or discussing this author, in English and German. He worked on the Parthenon among other things, I'd say these show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify please? Bearian (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your vote for delete while the comment seems to be in favour of keeping? Moritoriko (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't speak Greek, but I suspect that we may be applying our RS criteria only for English sources here. There seems to be more – and quite possibly enough to justify keeping the article – in Greek about Στέφανος Σίνος (e.g., a number of books, various articles including this one showing Sinos giving a tour of Mystras to Giscard d'Estaing, etc.). I think we may want to pause and look a bit deeper. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2): Further to the above, we have two entities on wikidata (d:Q113809331 and d:Q131292844), which I suspect may actually be the same person. If you look at a few of the entries in the first (such as the American Academy), the date ranges seems to correspond more closely to the subject of the second – which is to say, the subject of this discussion (I've depreciated the 1900 dob in the Wikidata record as a precaution). This needs more work, but it seems like it also points towards keeping the article (and tagging it with the appropriate maintenance tags, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The two Wikidata entities have now been merged (confirmed as same person) resulting in correct display of the various Authority Control databases in which Sinos appears (NB: w:Template:Authority control configured with "expanded" parameter for the duration of this discussion). This adds further weight to the argument for keeping and improving the article. It may be difficult to find English language sources (for myriad reasons), although his last book on the Archaeological Site of Mystras seems to have been either written in or translated into English. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per comments above. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think that Sinos could qualify for NProf via criteron 1, has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, with the books that I am seeing published. I don't know how citation counters work but from what I know I think they tend to focus on papers instead of books? (please correct my misunderstandings). And following from Cl3phact0's research above. Moritoriko (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation numbers apply to books also. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the case for NPROF appears fairly strong. Also, in addition to the Mystras book (and the several decades of work it documents), his book on pre-modern architecture looks as if may be a standard university textbook on the subject (according to the publisher, it was reprinted as recently as 2023). I haven't yet looked for more about the older publications, as I'd rather prefer to spend my time on other articles until the outcome of this AfD has been decided. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garsonuiskoe mine

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

Russian mine that fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches of Breastwick

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find sources that Project Horror uses [1], so that's of no help. This is the only sort of review in a source I could find [2], I'm not sure if that's a RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Nickm57 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shows no notability. CabinetCavers (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bordering speedy given the lack of BEFOREs in various nominations by the same nominator and their barely acceptable rationale. In this case the BEFORE was just reading the page....The film meets Wp:NFILM as the subject of a notable documentary (see NFO section and reception in the article); a redirect to the director should have been considered anyway so that deletion should have been completely off the table. -Mushy Yank. 21:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any chance of a source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 18:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few things + there was a review at DVD Talk (generally accepted for notability) but it's not online anymore. If anyone has access to it, please let us know. -Mushy Yank. 19:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, although some of the numerous existing sources are from niche sites (such as http://www.thevideograveyard.com/w/witchesofbreastwick.html http://sexgoremutants.co.uk/reviews/witchbrdble.html etc), I think the fact it was the subject of a notable documentary makes it "policy-based notable", to which one can add the fact that many sources list it as infamously bad or note the presence of Stormy Daniels, among other things. -Mushy Yank. 19:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The way it looks now I think the film passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources used are of vague prominence but the fact that this even has reviews independent of the documentary about it (in addition to the latter existing) makes this seem notable. The article is in a better place than it was prior to nomination. -- Recon rabbit 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work done by mushy yank and the poor deletion rationale Scooby453w (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hall

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

While her works are somewhat notable, her herself isn't exactly, failing WP:GNG. It's a stub, I get it, but there's so little information on here and almost nothing on Google. We don't even know if she's alive or not. KrystalInfernus (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: She doesn't have any works of her own. She is an actress who has appeared in some notable stage works, but the article does not say what roles she played. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... if there are reviews of her performances in these works then that would count towards notability per the first criteria. Of course that would require sourcing - I'll see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding coverage of her stage performances. Her movie/film roles are pretty much minor and background characters. Offhand, given some of the reviews of her stage performances thus far, she might prefer the article get deleted rather than have a summary of what they've been saying. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards a keep here so far - she's been in some notable performances and has gotten mention to varying degrees. She doesn't seem to have met with any overwhelming success, but there's enough so far that she could probably pass criteria 1 of NACTOR. I will try to keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:RSs have you found? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found multiple reviews of plays she's been in. The ones I'm using to count towards notability are the ones that specifically mention her within the body of the review. For example, Reuters, The Spectator, and The Guardian all call her out by name in reviews for Present Laughter and Hall received additional attention from The Guardian for We That Are Left. Her performances were also reviewed by the British Theater Guide, which looks usable - I've seen where it's been used as a RS in academic/scholarly texts published by De Gruyter, Palgrave Macmillan, Taylor & Francis, and so on. There was also a review by the Oldham Evening Chronicle, but that's not as high profile as the others. There was a paywalled review for The Doctor's Dilemma by The Stage. I can't tell if she was mentioned in that or not, so I'm not entirely counting that one.

Reviews for an actor's work can count towards notability for them and have traditionally qualified under criteria 1 of NACTOR. So on that note, I'm arguing for a keep. She's not some overwhelmingly notable stage actor, but she's also not some random who acts in the chorus or only has a single line role. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that the "reviews" mentioned can get us to GNG. She is mentioned in sources that review the plays, but, for example, the Reuters piece only says this about her performance: Hall is a bit too gushy as Daphne. The guardian has a few more words: Paul Woodson and Amy Hall give lovely unaffected performances as the youngsters trembling on the brink of an uncertain future. but that's all it says about her acting. The British Theatre Guide has one sentence about her character's place in the plot, but says nothing about her performance: The opening scenes show a star struck ingénue, played by Amy Hall, the morning after falling head over heels in love and into bed with our hero. A description of the character is not a review of the actor if nothing is said about the acting. I don't understand these brief mentions to be "significant coverage". Lamona (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say she just meets WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in Present Laughter at the National Theatre, London; Blithe Spirit at the Oldham Coliseum Theatre; and in The Shape of Things and The Turn of the Screw at Neath (which I have added to the article). I have not been able to find more roles - part of the problem may be that when she might be expected to have roles and reviews, in the 10 years from 2008/09, there are quite a few publications which were not published digitally and have not yet been digitised (The Stage, for instance, on the British Newspaper Archive, goes up to 2007). I have found an actress called Amy Hall appearing in York in the 2020s (eg [3]) - but is that the same Amy Hall? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some WP:NOTABILITY in the name itself. Upon researching further, the subject is indeed notable with several acting works throughout her career. There might be a need for copyedit and rewriting the article as the intro itself is just a few words in a line.

For actors, we don't have specific described sources but more like sources that give their names
There shall be reliable sources that further strengthens reliability and notability but every outlet is reliable unless COI or considered unreliable
The Guardian, The BBC, The Hollywood reporter, Variety and more are some of the reliable sources already added here
Thus, improving the article is a sure need here including one parameter other than name Infobox but subject itself is notable enough.

HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky (TV series)

AfDs for this article:

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

Was redirected 6 years ago as a result of an AfD. Was recently resurrected with zero in-depth sourcing. A couple of simple listing and an imdb ref. Was redirected, but that was contested, as was the G4. Still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Adarsha Shikkakh Federation

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

Dones't show any notability. Somajyoti ✉ 19:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet Cantonment Public School and College

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

One of the Cantonment schools in Bangladesh. Not particularly notable. Similar articles were deleted. See ---- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverview Cantonment Board School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School, Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College, Ramu Cantonment English School and College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramu Cantonment Public School and College etc.... Somajyoti ✉ 19:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh International School & College (Nirjhor)

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

A school in Dhaka. There is no point in writing an article like this because there is nothing special about this school. Somajyoti ✉ 19:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayan Film Critics Association Awards 2004

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

I looked for sources supporting notability, but the top search results just pointed back to Wikipedia. Possibly there's significant coverage that's just not in English? Otherwise it does not appear to satisfy our inclusion criteria. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirjhor Cantonment Public School and College

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

One of the Cantonment schools in Bangladesh. Not particularly notable. Similar articles were deleted. See ---- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverview Cantonment Board School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School, Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College, Ramu Cantonment English School and College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramu Cantonment Public School and College etc.... Somajyoti ✉ 19:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajshahi Cantonment Public School and College

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

One of the Cantonment schools in Bangladesh. Not particularly notable. Similar articles were deleted. See ---- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverview Cantonment Board School, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammadpur A. Gafur Government Primary School, Jalalabad Cantonment English School And College, Ramu Cantonment English School and College, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramu Cantonment Public School and College etc.... Somajyoti ✉ 19:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

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

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Community Schools

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

Notability criterias are not met. Somajyoti ✉ 19:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America, and Michigan. Somajyoti ✉ 19:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 3046

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Also fails to exist and fails verification. Neither of the sources given claims this is a star. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete, or redirect and add an entry to List of NGC objects (3001–4000). It looks like this is either non-existent or a duplicate of NGC 3051 (which doesn't have an article). The claim that it's a star probably comes from the list of NGC stars, which it should be removed from. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect this to the list of NGC objects. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 22:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep De Almeida

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

CTO of one of Sri Lanka's largest telecommunications service providers, but there is little significant coverage (at least in English) to establish notability, beyond routine corporate mentions. No major awards or academic publications. The sources currently in the article are primarily corporate or primary sources, and they don't directly verify the claims made. Mooonswimmer 18:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers (band)

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

I couldn't verify the "international #1" claim. If such a claim is false, this page clearly fails WP:BAND. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American-Israeli airstrike on Iran

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

Speculative article (violating WP:CRYSTAL) based primarily on synthesis of political rhetoric. There is no ongoing or formally planned operation, nor is there even a hypothetical event widely covered with detailed analysis. Mooonswimmer 18:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iran, Israel, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated by the nomination, wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. There doesn't seem to be any formal plan. Sourcing largely seems to be a notably unreliable queens man making threats.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article with no substance about a hypothetical attack. We can't have an article on every possible military encounter that might happen where there's nothing else accompanying the mere possibility. — Czello ^(music) 19:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 19:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Preparations are underway by the US[4][5] as well as Iran[6][7] for the possibility of war. There's hypothetical speculation as well[8]. Moreover, we have similar articles e.g. Operation True Promise III. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crampcomes (talk • contribs) 15:48, April 27, 2025 (UTC)

Delete: WP:CRYSTAL Wikipedia does not divine the future. — Maile (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Fear-mongering isn't article-worthy. Jebiguess (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türkan Atay

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

Weak sourcing, not enough significant coverage demonstrating she is notable as an entertainer or activist. Most of the coverage revolves around disputes over payment and defamation. Mooonswimmer 18:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very limited coverage. Most sources on her appear to be on a recent dispute: WP:NOTNEWS Aintabli (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Punjab

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

The article is based entirely on recent news announcements. The airline still only exists on paper and is not an operating airline, failing WP:NORG. Mooonswimmer 18:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. If this project actually gets off the ground (no pun intended), it's likely to be notable - but that's a big if. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't strictly apply here, but I'm thinking along those lines. We can't build an encyclopedia article about a potential airline with these sources, given that they're basically about one announcement that plans for the airline have been approved, and a bunch of speculation. Draftifying and revisting in 6 months to a year (g13 deletions can be undone trivially) seems like the best solution. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 19:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Management and Science Institute, Colombo

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

No reliable sources except those by the same company. Appears to be purely promotional UtoD 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. UtoD 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Science. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giruwari

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

Created in 2012 and tagged since 2018 as completely lacking sources. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing more than social media travelogue-type posts and one newspaper article mentioning the location only in passing, with a mention of several other locales in the area. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGEO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steppin' Out (magazine)

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

Non-notable magazine that is apparently out of publication. Unable to find any sources discussing it. The single source that was standing to the article is to a website that was removed or otherwise blacklisted from archive.org, which is a red flag. Further, about the only thing I found on this publication indicates that its last article was published about four years ago. Probably fails other specific notability guidelines, but it's a clear WP:GNG fail. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babarloi Dharna

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

Article is not providing the significant coverage. According to chatgpt.zero, 98% of article has been created from Artificial Intelligence. The protests details also provided in the Controversial canals project on Indus River's political developments section. Article also fails to pass the WP:GNG and also edited by only two users. Some text excerpted from Controversial canals project on Indus River and there is no sense to keep the article stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there may be concerns about AI involvement, Wikipedia's policies do not forbid using AI-generated text as long as the content complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — especially verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. The subject of this article has been sourced from the reliable sources and doesn't fail WP:GNG. Meanwhile, some of the portion may be covered under the Controversial canals project on Indus River, but the details specific to the protests are substantial enough to merit a standalone article.The article can be improved by human copy editing, rather than deleted completely. Content that overlaps can be trimmed or consolidated, but the existence of partial duplication is not a enough reason for deletion under WP:ContentFork or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.If the article has capability, we prefer improving it, not deleting it. The topic is current and may attract more coverage over time and It serves readers seeking specific information, which may not be easily found elsewhere. Issues can be solved by cleanup, therefore I recommend improvement if necessary, not deletion. JogiAsad (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to merge the article in the Controversial canals project on Indus River, in which you can create a separate section named Protests and can write the required text in own words with Reliable and independent sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to merge Babarloi Dharna into the "Controversial canals project on Indus River" article; because Babarloi Dharna is a specific protest or an event and significant enough on its own, meanwhile The Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests. While the two topics are related, they are distinct: Babarloi Dharna is a notable, standalone protest movement that received significant and enough independent media coverage, (i.e news articles, reports, studies, etc.). It is not merely a minor part of the broader canals project, but a major event with its own political and social impact. So therefore it deserves its own Wikipedia article based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specially WP:GNG — general notability guideline) and Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:N). Events with substantial coverage in reliable sources merit their own articles. Merging would diminish the independent significance of the Dharna.
I argue that:

The two topics are related, but not identical.

Babarloi Dharna is not merely a subtopic; it is a standalone notable event.WP:N

Merging would obscure the full coverage and importance of the Dharna, i.e. Sit-ins itself.

Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests

Merging would downplay an important social movement or event that has independent significance. WP:NOTMERGE.
JogiAsad (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lahore Front (1965)

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

As already concluded on the last AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lahore Front, this article is just a collection of a bunch of battles with no particular source talking about the battle in Lahore or any "Lahore front" contrary to what the article and the page title wants to tell. Capitals00 (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Shopov (curler)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nhật Lâm

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

This person may very well be notable, but the current article is both heavily promotional and a WP:BLP violation, as a BLP sourced solely to unreliable sources (Youtube and social media), with references that don't support the biographical information in the article. Delete on WP:BLP and WP:TNT grounds. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Vietnam, and California. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Savov

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rumen Panayotov

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svetozar Kirov

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to fail GNG by quite some way. I found a post on Facebook but nothing else really. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Art Fight

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

Fails WP:GNG. Besides the The Verge source referenced, I couldn't find any other independent coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Websites. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Events, and Games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Dimitrov (curler)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parakev Arsenov

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any Bulgarian coverage at all. It looks like NCURLING has changed since the last AfD. Previously, just participating in a World Curling Federation event was enough but now a medal is required. In any case, I think GNG should be the most important consideration here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

/g/ sound

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

When the '/g/' has slashes, this implies a linguistic transcription, so this should not be a disambiguation page as the only possible target for this is the voiced velar plosive. I would consider renaming to G sound, but that page already exists as a redirect to this page, so seems necessary to go for WP:TNT here. Stockhausenfan (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Stockhausenfan (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think renaming to "G sound" would be the better option. Pescavelho (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stockhausenfan:, I believe you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for this. Victoria (OutsideNormality) / talk 22:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Flight 052P

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A landing accident with no casualities created by a user who makes stub articles that usually get deleted. -Bloxzge 025 ツ — Preceding undated comment added 2:02, 21 April 2024 (EDT)

Delete per nom and WP:NEVENT, existing summary at Gao International Airport is ample coverage of this non-notable event. Carguychris (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Africa. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete, but...~~ the article creator had already agreed to have it redirected, why not let the redirect stand instead? –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had attempted to redirect the article on mobile but I somehow messed it up so the article (which was supposed to be a redirect) remained an article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to redirect, since the event is discussed in the article for the airport. –FlyingAce^✈hello 00:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gao International Airport#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion – Just as a note, I don't think it really matters who created the article or what the state of the articles are as we're judging an event's notability. – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident.^[b] In addition, while a final report has been released along with recommendations, I have been unable to find any sort of follow up to the recommendations issued, failing WP:LASTING. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Aviationwikiflight. nf utvol (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect non-notable overrun, redirect seems a fine AtD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.
^ Per WP:GNG, WP:WHYN and WP:EVENTCRIT, we would need significant secondary coverage^[a] and/or in-depth coverage of the event. None of the sources really go beyond reporting that the plane crashed and the subsequent reactions like this or this. Then there's this article by FlightGlobal but it's just repeating what Rosaviatsia released in a statement and there's no actual analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis behind it, hence the majority of sources are primary. This fails WP:NOTNEWS#1 which states that 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source, which is basically what the news articles are. There's also no continued coverage of the accident post-August 2020.

Redirect to Gao International Airport#Accidents and incidents FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Prague

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

Essay-like article that appears to be based primarily on synthesized material from Mozart biographies without secondary sources focusing specifically on "Mozart and Prague" as a notable topic. Better covered as a section within the main article on Mozart. Mooonswimmer 16:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep I agree with @Mooonswimmer that the article is essay-like (WP:NOTANESSAY), but I would argue there is enough information here backed up by secondary sources that is worth keeping. The main article for Mozart is already very long so I'm in favor of keeping (a version of) this. It would take a bit of effort though. I would suggest as a start changing the opening paragraph ("There is no question that the Praguers..." reads very much like an essay) and removing and adapting some of the headers ("Why didn't Mozart stay?" for example does not sound like a Wikipedia article). Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, History, and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful Dead Archive

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

The archive lacks significant independent coverage establishing notability beyond its existence as a university collection. Most sources are affiliated with UCSC. Mooonswimmer 16:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some mentions in sources (not already cited in the article) such as the book Ink on the Tracks: Rock and Roll Writing, the 2015 article The Grateful Dead Archive in Music Reference Services Quarterly, or the book Reading the Grateful Dead: A critical survey. I suggest demoting the article to a stub, incorporate these sources, and update it with newer information. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ziyarid conquest of Isfahan

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). The topic is not covered in depth by reliable, independent sources. The article relies exclusively on obscure Persian-language sources without any internationally recognized English-language academic support, violating WP:RS and WP:WORLDVIEW. Furthermore, it fails WP:V due to lack of verifiable, broadly accessible references, It also omits essential information such as the year of the event (violating WP:MOSDATE). Overall, the article does not meet the standards required for an independent Wikipedia article. R3YBOl (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Middle East, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Hibbett

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

Seems like a nice chap, but not notable.

The external sources are two 20-year-old listicles that mention him in passing alongside a number of acts that don’t have their own pages, the rest are his own website/tweets/self-produced content.

No clear evidence of charting songs/awards/other significant recognition.

His most popular songs & videos never cracked 100,000 views on YouTube, with the majority below 1,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchantiophyta (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Muyia Nafukho

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

Requested by individual Maomulma (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, Kenya, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to whom? I see nothing on this article's talk page. I see nothing on the nom's talk page or the creator's talk page. Short of the subject dropping a verified UTRS request (or a substantive challenge to the subject's notability), there are no grounds to sustain a deletion, and the nom has failed to make one. Ravenswing 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feather of Maat

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

This article is currently sourced to two youtube videos. The information seems accurate, but upon searching myself, I can find many reliable sources (i.e. reputable organizations) describing Maat and mentioning the feather as an aside, but nothing going into detail about the feather. I'm not sure if this needs its own article -- it seems as if it just describes what "Ma'at" and the ritual are again, even though those are already covered in other articles. Unless there are sources going into more detail on the feather, I'm not sure if it needs a whole article rather than just a mention that Maat's symbol was the feather. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Egypt. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Araújo (disambiguation)

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

Unneeded two-item dab page. PROD was contested for some inexplicable reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-O-Lodge

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The Blikk source is an ad. I can't tell what the NOL.hu source is about, but it does not appear to be about the article subject. The 24.hu source contains only a link to a blogpost. The other sources are directory listings or the organization's website. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hungary. ~ A412 ^talk! 14:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NCORP and WP:NPOV. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Młoda Liga

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

Fails to meet the requirements set forth by WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources and is being used as simply a database for standings and scores. WP:NOTSTATS. There is no indication of significant coverage of this topic. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Volleyball, Europe, and Poland. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Afshani

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined the speedy tag this am, since the (dated) sources all date newer than the previous AfD (inappropriately closed as speedy delete by a non-admin closer). This latest incarnation is entirely sourced from Farsi outlets, so even with translation, I'm not comfortable with my own views on how direct the detailing is or how much is merely routine entertainment chatter. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can I love?

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

I see nothing apart from listings on streaming services that mention this. Nothing suggests this meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG, and since there is not an article for an album or even the artist for this to be merged into, deletion is the best option I see. Sources in the article are only brief mentions of the artist (not mentioning the song at all), are self-written profiles (see Hype Music's about page) and streaming service listings. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 13:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kemah (1515)

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

WP:GNG I can’t find the necessary sources to verify and establish the subject’s notability. The sources cited in the article do not mention the siege.Iranian112 (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kemah, Erzincan: The siege is mentioned in all 4 sources; however, almost all are passing mentions. At best, here, we learn the defending commander's name. Most sources I could find through a quick search were also passing mentions. Maybe this source is not a passing mention, but it merely concerns the route Selim took to reach Kemah. Aintabli (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources refer to conquest, not siege. Iranian112 (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct; at least two of the four sources cited explicitly refer to a siege: "kuşatma", "muhasara" Plenty of sources not cited here refer to it as a siege: [9][10][11] "Conquest" and sieges are not mutually exclusive concepts. Regardless, my vote is not to keep. Aintabli (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Globalization of wine

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

This article mostly duplicates existing, better articles. It has featured various improvement tags dating back to 2008, and seemingly was PRODded in 2020 - which was only removed this week (I'm not sure how that happened). I think at this point it's fairly safe to say WP:TNT applies, as it's got very little reedeming it.

In addition the article seems largely to be an essay, failing WP:NOT. CoconutOctopus talk 13:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Wine. CoconutOctopus talk 13:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I agree this article largely seems like an (incomplete) essay based on a chapter of a single book source. I would redirect to History of wine as most of the article is about wine history.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I considered a redirect but I think that as the Globalization of Wine article managed to have a PROD on it for 5 years! it likely isn't looked at very much if at all, and I'm not sure how useful a redirect from such a term would even be. CoconutOctopus talk 19:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, Indiana

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

A "no there there" short-lived pre-RFD post office, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is hard to find secondary (or even primary for that matter) sources on this. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Amos

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV, sources for notability are mostly not WP:INDEPENDENT. Three are articles from NASA, Amos's longtime employer; two are from LDS Church-owned outlets (Deseret News, Church News) shortly after she began her term as a mission president for the LDS Church; one is a deadlink to SpaceRef; and one is a local news article about luncheon at which Amos was among the attendees. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, Engineering, and Spaceflight. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve - I feel like she might meet GNG. I added a few more sources which just support the positions she held at NASA. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a profile of Amos and her spouse in The Advocate in 2020 and a brief one in the Salt Lake Tribune in 2021. I think we could use these to expound upon her activities as mission president. Best, Bridget (talk) ~~04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)~~ 11:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per the sources mentioned by Bridget but I also feel that the Desert News has enough editorial independence to contribute to notability in cases like this. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still undecided. The only source of length that I've found is from the BYU Idaho news about a talk she gave. Much of it is quotes from her talk so I think it should be considered similar to an interview. The other, from the Deseret News, is already in the WP article. I don't know if we can consider that latter "independent". Lamona (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on sourcing would be useful, keep !votes at present all prevaricate somewhat on the lack of strength and independence of sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Voice actors can certainly be notable per WP:NACTOR if they have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She has voiced lead roles for many notable films, in a variety of languages. The main issue seems to me to be finding reliable sources to verify that she has voiced those roles. The sources currently in the article are not reliable or independent. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for sourcing to be identified (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. The first is that although the AfD you linked here shows your contention that NACTOR is met with two main/lead roles, it also shows a divide amongst editors on how to interpret that. Note it closed as No Consensus with the closing admin noting that editors were divided in the assessment of NACTOR. However, the AfDs here and here where you asserted the same resulted in delete. While this does not establish consensus, it does show that editors do not share the same assessment. Note, I am not saying she must meet WP:GNG. I am saying she meets neither. Second, NACTOR is not met with two roles with "coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions." In fact, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here, the sources are junk. They are non-bylined coverage similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, websites like Celebrity Networth, or are otherwise unreliable. If someone is worthy of notice, you would think they would have more than this type of simple coverage. It would be more significant where they would meet WP:NBASIC. Finally, one of the shows you claim is a notable series, you actually redirected based on notability. You only reverted in March of 2025 to help support your contention in the first AfD. Both shows I think are marginally notable at best as they also contain the same type of unreliable sourcing, although I will not nominate either during this AfD so as not to give the appearance of WP:DISRUPTIVE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied to all this in the other AfD I linked precisely for that purpose, and in the precedent discussion about this actress. See there. -Mushy Yank. 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a pass of WP:NACTOR per Mushy Yank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of reliability of sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portable Database Image

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep by criteria 1 and 3. No valid deletion rationale provided. WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline. Please provide clear + valid rationale for these nominations @Clenper.
I spent a large part of yesterday researching previous nominations that used NSOFT as rationale that were not eligible for soft deletion due to declined prod. At least 2 were likely notable due to use in teaching or common use in Java programming. The lack of justification in nominations is placing an unnecessary burden on other editors. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Two book hits, one in German, indicates this isn't a significant thing. The heck with NSOFT: it baldly fails GNG. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tit (Isis Knot)

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

This looks like a slightly changed copy of Tyet. I originally blanked and redirected, but I don't think the title is likely to be a common search so it might make more sense to delete. BuySomeApples (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on deleting the article, as after reviewing the “Tyet” article, I noticed there is a significant similarity between the two. I hadn’t noticed this initially because I translated it from Arabic, and when I checked links to other languages, I didn’t see it in the English version, so I created it and linked it. However, after reviewing your comment, I realize that the article is unnecessary. علي بدر العتيبي (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalesija and Kamenica fighting (July – October 1992)

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

Fails WP:GNG, only source being used is the cia 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep, the reason you have given is not a valid reason for deletion. An expert on the Balkan Wars should weigh in. Geschichte (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cia is a biased source here 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[12]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to your bias assessment of independent sources. While it is true the Deseret News should not be considered independent for this subject, the Salt Lake Tribune is a separate legal entity and there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that maintain its independent status. "Mormon-themed blogs" are also not an exclusionary source just as "baseball-themed blogs" would not be exclusionary to create interviews independent of Major League Baseball. I agree completely in efforts to require independent sourcing, but for a pioneering woman of color this article meets the requirements--and has already been reviewed as such in the past. Fullrabb (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Illinois, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deseret News. That is where Catherine M. Stokes redirects at present. Given that the original AfD did not note the lack of independence amongst the sources combined with the fact that a search of sources via the Chicago Public Library and at the State Archives revealed that contrary to one contributor's assertion, there is not in fact a substantial amount of content from her time in Illinois. The articles gave her the title of manager and assistant deputy director in the state's Office of Health Care Regulation. The lack of being listed in the Illinois Blue Book at any point makes me wonder if Deputy Director was her final title or if they rounded up in her editorial biography. There is a reason that Catherine M. Stokes redirects to the Deseret News. This should too.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Perkins

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Cites one source which is not WP:INDEPENDENT of Marvin Perkins and not a WP:RS. The seven external links are similarly neither reliable nor independent coverage. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidz Bop (album)

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

The various Kidz Bop album releases are not notable by themselves. They were all turned into redirects by WanderingWanda in 2019, with an explanatory note available at Talk:Kidz Bop#Pruning ✂️. All the albums that were recently raised up again from redirects should be returned to redirects. Even though the albums generally register on the Billboard charts, the topic of Kidz Bop albums can be covered much better at the central Kidz Bop page which has a list of albums and chart results. There is nothing remarkable about the individual albums. Even Sputnik says that nobody cares about these albums. Let's return them all to redirects, including Kidz Bop (album), Kidz Bop 2, Kidz Bop 3, Kidz Bop 4 and Kidz Bop 7. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Redirect to Kids Bop: despite charting, independent coverage outside of AllMusic by volume is minimal. Any noteworthy individual achievement can easily be spelled out there. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mack (restaurateur)

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

I cannot find significant coverage on the person, but only on his family, and projects (resorts, hotels, etc) he is involved. Not sufficient media coverage for general notability for people. Unicorbia (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "Restaurantguide 2025: Thomas Mack ist internationaler Botschafter" [Restaurant Guide 2025: Thomas Mack is an international ambassador]. Falstaff [zh] (in German). 2024-12-02. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Thomas Mack kennt das Food-&-Beverage-Geschäft seit Kindheitstagen. Für sein Taschengeld engagierte sich der jüngste Sohn des Europa-Park-Chefs früh im Familienbetrieb: Er frittierte Pommes, schenkte Getränke aus, half bei Banketts und arbeitete sogar als Nachtportier. Nach seiner Ausbildung an der renommierten Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern, die Mack als Jahrgangsbester abschloss, übernahm er eine zentrale Rolle im Familienunternehmen. Heute verantwortet er das gesamte operative Geschäft des Europa-Parks, einschließlich der 90 Gastronomiebetriebe, 5.800 Hotelbetten und 4.750 Mitarbeiter, die jährlich mehr als sechs Millionen Gäste aus aller Welt betreuen. 2012 eröffnete Mack das Fine-Dining-Restaurant »Ammolite«, das seit zehn Jahren zwei Michelin-Sterne trägt. 2022 folgte das immersive Dinner-Erlebnis »Eatrenalin«."
  From Google Translate: "Thomas Mack has been familiar with the food and beverage business since childhood. The youngest son of the Europa-Park CEO got involved in the family business early on to earn his pocket money: he fried fries, served drinks, helped at banquets, and even worked as a night porter. After completing his training at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne, where Mack graduated top of his class, he assumed a key role in the family business. Today, he is responsible for all of Europa-Park's operations, including its 90 restaurants, 5,800 hotel beds, and 4,750 employees, who serve more than six million guests from all over the world annually. In 2012, Mack opened the fine-dining restaurant "Ammolite," which has held two Michelin stars for ten years. The immersive dining experience "Eatrenalin" followed in 2022."
2. Hofer, Joachim; Buchenau, Martin-W. (2020-01-07). "Wie der Familienunternehmer den Europapark auch im Winter attraktiv halten möchte: Der Diplom-Hotelier und Juniorchef des Europaparks hat gerade erst sein neustes Hotel eröffnet – mit Erfolg. Ein weiteres dürfte schon bald folgen" [How the family entrepreneur wants to keep Europapark attractive in winter: The qualified hotelier and junior manager of Europa-Park has just opened his newest hotel – with great success. Another is expected to follow soon.]. Handelsblatt (in German). Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Sohn Thomas ist für Kost und Logis zuständig, ... Und nicht nur das: Mit dem „Ammolite“ betreibt Thomas Mack in einem der Hotels sogar ein mit zwei Sternen gekröntes Nobelrestaurant. Längst hat Mack bei seinen Ausbauplänen nicht mehr nur Disneyland im Blick oder das Phantasialand. „Unser Mitbewerber ist eher Mallorca denn ein anderer Freizeitpark“, sagt der Absolvent der Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern. 2007 stieg Mack als Prokurist in die Firma ein. Seit 2016 ist der verheiratete Vater von zwei kleinen Kindern als geschäftsführender Gesellschafter für Hotels, Gastronomie sowie das Marketing zuständig. Um die Leute rund ums Jahr in die badische Provinz zu holen, organisieren Macks Mitarbeiter fast jeden Tag eine Veranstaltung – ob die Achterbahnen nun laufen oder nicht. Momentan lädt er die Gäste Abend für Abend zu einer opulenten Dinnershow."
  From Google Translate: "Son Thomas is responsible for food and lodging... And that's not all: With the "Ammolite," Thomas Mack even runs a two-star gourmet restaurant in one of the hotels. Mack's expansion plans have long since moved beyond Disneyland and Phantasialand. "Our competition is more likely to be Mallorca than any other theme park," says the graduate of the Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. Mack joined the company as an authorized signatory in 2007. Since 2016, the married father of two young children has been the managing partner responsible for hotels, gastronomy, and marketing. To attract visitors to the Baden province year-round, Mack's employees organize an event almost every day – whether the roller coasters are running or not. He currently invites guests to an opulent dinner show every evening."
3. Ralph, Owen (2024-04-16). "Thomas Mack: why hospitality matters at Europa-Park Resort. The resort's managing partner knows how to wine, dine and accommodate its six million guests with style". Blooloop. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  Blooloop has editorial oversight. The article notes: "The middle child and younger son of Europa-Park founder Roland Mack, Thomas Mack worked as a teenager in the park’s hotels, cafés, and restaurants. He also interned at other theme parks, hotels, and hospitality businesses. After the success of Europa-Parks’ first two hotels, he was encouraged to study for a degree at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. ... Now aged 43, Thomas has been responsible for all the gastronomy, hospitality and entertainment operations at Europa-Park Resort since 2007. In 2016, he was made a managing partner." The article says that he is married to Katja Mack, "the founder and head of Europa-Park's Talent Academy".
4. Neubauer, Dirk (2021-07-10). "Europa-Park-Chefs Michael und Thomas Mack: Mit dem Skateboard in der Bobbahn" [Europa-Park bosses Michael and Thomas Mack: Skateboarding on the bobsleigh track]. Badische Neueste Nachrichten (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-08-05. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "They're mischievous stories, as if Michael and Thomas Mack had watched too many Michel from Lönneberga movies: The two brothers throw chestnuts from Balthasar Castle into the historic garden of Europa-Park. ... Also unforgettable is a competition between the Mack brothers: who could complete the most laps on the then-brand-new Eurosat roller coaster. After lap 34, Michael, the older of the two, gave up. "Thomas won, but he also had a nosebleed.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Thomas Mack to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony T. Roberts

AfDs for this article:

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

Longstanding unsourced BLP. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Michigan. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:Delete: This Article does not meets it's notability for mainspace and does not maintain reliable sources. Also it's has now 2nd nomination for Wikipedia:Article for deletion, therefore it should be deleted. Thanks KayVegas (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is my first time in a discussion like this so I'm not too sure how this all works but I concur with deleting this article there are only 2 sources one of which is the subjects own website which isn't reliable and a idmb page which just lists credits. speaking of which the credits themselves don't confer notability either as they appear to be mostly minor roles. Scooby453w (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on a side note I looked at the previous afd which resulted in keep however it seems to have been solely based on the fact that he had an idmb page which I disagree with as I stated above Scooby453w (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was 2007...

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
— L. P. Hartley in The Go-Between (1953)

Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah that is my point perhaps a simple idmb bio was enough for an article back then but it seems the standards have been raised. Im not too familiar with the procces of what should and shouldn't be kept but it seems to me that articles with poor sourcing tend to get deleted Scooby453w (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr. Box Office#Main Cast: but if existing sources seem OK for GNG, not fiercely opposed to Keep (a lot of coverage like https://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140723/tony-roberts-brings-an-army-of-jokes-to-the-forum-for-komedy-xxplosion/ or https://www.royalgazette.com/other/lifestyle/article/20150402/comedians-will-have-you-in-stitches/ exists). (Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR as the other roles are minor or in not clearly notable productions) -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i could get behind a redirect Scooby453w (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:BLP. I'm ok with a redirect, but only conditional on finding at least one reliable source. Bearian (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/bill-bellamy-jon-lovitz-vivica-fox-sitcom-keshia-knight-pulliam-gary-busey-byron-allen-321177/; https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/mr-box-office/cast/1000570817/ -Mushy Yank. 22:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough for WP:GNG - there's a full page article about him from 2014 in The Arizona Republic [13], and a good para from 2023 in The News Journal (Delaware) [14], and the LA Daily News article that Mushy Yank found does have biographical info in it, as well as bits of interview. Given that he's a stand-up comedian, redirecting to one show seems rather limiting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider sources found relatively late in the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prody Parrot

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSOFT The page was recreated while still not meeting notability criteria. Clenpr (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this review in PC Mag, this piece in the Arizona Daily Star, this in Electronic Design, and this in the Journal of Commerce. There's also this article mentioning that it won an award from the Smithsonian and was included in the Smithsonian Permanent Research Collection. And there's this mention in Information Week, but I can only access a snippet. I also found quite a few recent sources that mention Prody Parrot as one of the earliest examples of a digital assistant, but none that provide SIGCOV of it. Together I think it's probably enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep per sources found above Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lodaya (train)

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

This article has been created multiple times before (Draft:Lodaya Train, Draft:Lodaya train, Draft:Lodaya (train)) with slightly different names. I am unable to find sources to show that this meets GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indonesia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is completely unsourced, and notability is clearly lacking. Author is a bit disruptive since they keep recreating the article for no reason, and they also remove maintenance templates without explanation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Poland

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

Niche NGO/political party with next to no visibility/recognition. If it is a party, there is no info on any elected officials or even elections it participated it. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement is an existing, formally established and growing association with social media presence. Other countries’ chapters of Volt, including the niche ones in the startup phase, have their own pages on Wikipedia. The argument that the association is not publicly well-known hence the article should be deleted is arbitrary.

It is not yet a formally established party, hence you unnecessarily expect elected officials, but neither are Volt chapters of other countries with their own Wikipedia webpages, operating as associations. Check the main page of Volt for further details. Daeheung (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not arbitrary, read WP:GNG. If similar or even less notable "start up" chapters have their own article - they need to be cleaned up as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then unless you clean up all small chapters of Volt, in fact being active registered associations, by your arbitrary argument of being unrecognized by wider public, you cannot clean up solely Volt Poland. Daeheung (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Volt Europa. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. Sarbini

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

Wasn't able to find sources that would show that this meets WP:GNG. Someone who can understand Indonesian might have better luck. A previous draftification was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Indonesia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Gopalganj district

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This appears to be a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Just because this information exists, does not mean it should be in Wikipedia. Blackballnz (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JekyllTheFabulous. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast International Model United Nations

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

I had created this page, but am not fully sure if the sources currently listed or the sources available are enough to establish notability. So would love to get this into a deletion discussion, to get a consensus soon. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Nagaland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like you're the only user who has substantively edited the article. If you want the article deleted, you can tag it with G7. I don't think AfD is the appropriate venue to seek help with improving it, but I'm not sure what is, although someone more familiar with cases like these may provide more meaningful advice. If you don't want to delete it but aren't sure it's ready for publication yet, it can probably be moved to your userspace or draft space to allow you to improve it. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep gotcha. The thing is that I’m 60-40% on the fence for this. I kinda think that the subject is notable owing to the sources but this might be a case of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. So thought that an AfD would be the best way to ascertain notability quickly. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would redirect to List of model United Nations conferences. There doesn't seem to be articles for other conferences, even THIMUN. As for the current content, it reads somewhat promotionally, and with little that would apply to this MUN conference and not any other. That is not to say a MUN conference couldn't be notable, but if it was I would expect there would be more to say. CMD (talk) 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest vines

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

Unfortunately, this list fails on the guidelines for notability of lists. WP:NLIST I have not been able to locate any source that discusses longest vines as a group. In addition I have not been able to locate any sources that support the claims for notability/inclusion of most of the list items. For example "Longest monocot". "The longest parasitic vine." etc.

This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH with the editors doing original research. This would make a great article in a popular science magazine, but WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of original publication.

I discussed these issues with the article's primary editor on the talk page, but they have not been able to provide any source that would deal with the notability issue. I placed a synth notice on the page in October of 2024 and no other editor has responded on the talk page or provided a source.

I don't know that there is anywhere appropriate to redirect this article to. Maybe to matchbox bean (Entada phaseoloides) as the probable longest vine. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This looks like original research without a notable subject behind it. I agree that there are no clear AtDs at present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You and Mtbotany have set an impossible standard which I state categorically cannot be met. I know. I have been searching since 1969 for the sort of hard evidence which MtBotany insists on. It doesn't exist. Reports in botanical journals such as Treub's measurement of Calamus are the extreme exception. 56 years of stubborn research is evidence of that. MtBotany's suggestion of redirecting it is certainly better than nothing. If John Doe, having just measured his grape vine, begins to wonder "How long do vines get?", he should be able to get some sort of answer if he types in "longest vine". Here's another thought: You have a half dozen clones using your material for free. Why not let them earn their keep? Block it for Wikipedia per se, but continue feeding it to the clones. Just a thought. Treeenthusiast (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not much reference to the individual vines themselves, just the name of the species they are in. There is no article specifically about each specific longest plant, and iirc a list's purpose on wikipedia is to link articles about its content to the reader. I checked the very first entry (snuff box sea bean), supposedly the longest entry in the list, and the longest specimen length is not even notable enough to be mentioned in the article about the plant in general. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Ark (newspaper)

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

Non-notable newspaper, does not pass WP:NCORP. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY or local in scope, a WP:BEFORE search reveals no significant coverage of note. Author has a WP:COI and likely undisclosed WP:PAID interest. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies that I’m relatively new at this. I attempted to disclose my conflict that I’m the co-owner and editor of this newspaper. I was not paid by anyone to create this page; I did it in my free time on a weekend. The list of California papers ([[List of newspapers in California#Daily newspapers]]) is full of dozens of other weeklies with nothing exceptionally notable about them at all, and with circulation the same or smaller than ours. We’ve been named the best small newspaper in America several times by the National Newspaper Association (National Newspaper Association and California News Publishers Association (California News Publishers Association), which seems more significantly notable than than other non-daily newspapers with non-deleted wikis, eg the Salinas Valley TribuneSalinas Valley Tribune — with all due respect to my colleagues there! Thanks for your consideration and happy to answer any questions. Kzhessel (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kzhessel (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions that newspapers qualify under the criteria for "corporations and organizations" is fairly absurd. Yes it's a product but so are films, video games, books, which we have our own guidelines for, or any other kind of media, which we do not - clearly NCORP is not meant to cover "literally any piece of media", because that is absurd and counter to the spirit of notability. Better to go by WP:GNG or the suggestions at WP:NMEDIA... under which this does not pass, if the sourcing is all there is. This page does have no independent sources at the moment and needs to be largely trimmed. If this is all there is I would lean delete but if there is more coverage from outside sources (as the award would indicate there probably is) I would be more sympathetic. This seems like a relatively significant local paper. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing RfC about making Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability an SNG, so I would look to that for guidance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more citations. I'm not sure what kind of additional citations are needed though -- individual papers are typically the source of news, not the discussion of news. When they're not national newspapers and they get written about by other media, it's usually because something very bad happened, eg, the 5,000 circulaton Manteca Bulletin has plagiarism allegations. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW we do have other newspapers citing us as the source of original/breaking news, eg, https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/05/tiburon-ridge-nearly-doubles-open-space-size/ ; https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ex-boyfriend-guilty-of-attempted-murder-in-12559393.php ; https://www.marinij.com/2018/09/18/michael-mina-to-open-first-marin-restaurant-in-tiburon/ -- but we have no reason to include it in the wiki. I have included some other outside sources for citation though. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- although I could argue that being a significant local newspaper is notable in some cases, but I do not find this one passing WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I can appreciate that, I'm having difficulty with both the criteria and the notion that this newspaper would be deleted when other non-daily California papers smaller and/or less significant than ours remain, some of which also have substantial wikis: Daily Democrat, Whittier Daily News, Idyllwild Town Crier, Sonoma Valley Sun, Placerville Mountain Democrat, Paso Robles Press, Half Moon Bay Review, Palisadian-Post, Monterey County Weekly, The Mendocino Beacon, Madera Tribune, Larchmont Chronicle, Lompoc Record, Hollister Free Lance, The Healdsburg Tribune, Selma Enterprise, North County News Tribune, Del Norte Triplicate, Hellenic Journal, Inyo Register, Atascadero News.

(Disclosure: I'm the page author and owner-editor of the paper under discussion.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found some sigcov in this university press book [15], but it's entirely about how the newspaper got its name. There's also something here [16] that is sigcov from the google books preview, not that it shows it to you. Finding sources for newspapers is hard, they seem to be cited a decent amount. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

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

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show proof of COI or UPE editing? Nkj01 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahlita Buethke

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

No significant coverage in independent sources. Lower level amateur footballer. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources are independent of the subject, nor was anything I could find on Google. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is simply no available IRS SIGCOV sourcing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Capture of Ninh Bình

AfDs for this article:

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

Fundamentally based on 19th-century French colonial primary sources with no verification from independent or Vietnamese historical accounts. A thorough search finds no mention of the “Capture of Ninh Binh” in Vietnamese historiography or modern reliable sources. The article therefore relies entirely on colonial-era narratives, which are highly prone to bias, exaggeration, and imperialist framing, one look at the article and you’ll understand. Per WP:V, WP:HISTRS, and WP:NPOV historical topics must be supported by reputable, secondary sources and not solely colonial accounts. Without independent corroboration, this article promotes a one-sided, questionable version of history that does not meet Wikipedia’s sourcing or notability standards. Therefore, deletion is the appropriate course. More detailed historical issues are explained further on the article’s Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutsidersInsight (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Vietnam, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is fully sourced. No issue with French colonial sources. Colonial-era narratives are reliable sources. The sources used are not primary, and independent corroboration is not required for WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It relies almost entirely on French colonial-era sources from the 1870s–1880s (Romanet du Caillaud, Charton, d’Estampes, Société académique indochinoise). Only two modern sources (Phạm 1985 and Short 2014) are cited, and neither independently corroborates the extraordinary claim (7 men capturing 1,700 soldiers). Per WP:HISTRS and WP:RS, such extraordinary historical claims require strong independent confirmation, which is missing here. Article currently gives a misleading sense of undisputed fact. OutsidersInsight (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Nešković

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Notability: Đorđe Nešković has led a national team at multiple European Curling Championships, which is a significant international competition. That's a point in favor of notability.
Achievement: He won Serbia's first ever curling medal at the 2013 European C-Group Championships. First national medals in any sport usually carry weight.

Боки 💬 📝 21:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those criteria meet WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parbad Kali Mandir

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

This article on a temple does not satisfy general notability with its current references, and has been moved to article space after being declined at AFC, and then was moved to draft space and back to article space twice. Review of the sources shows that they are not independent.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Jagran (in Hindi)	About renovation of the temple. Appears to be an interview between the news and the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Youtube (in Hindi)	Youtube	Probably not	Don't know	No	No
3	www.livehindustan.com	About renovation of the temple. Reads like a release from the template.	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
4	hindi.news18.com	News article about the significance and popularity of the Kali Temple in Deoghar	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
5	www.livehindustan.com	About the history of the temple. Appears to have been written by the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No

Better sources probably can be found, but the article is still not ready for article space.

Draftify as nominator, to be moved into article space ONLY by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Jharkhand. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to formally express my opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. I believe that this temple holds significant historical, cultural, and religious importance, and deserves to be included on Wikipedia. While the sources currently cited may not meet the ideal reliability standards, I am in the process of gathering additional, more authoritative references that can help demonstrate its notability.

The temple is not only an important religious site for the local community, but it also holds cultural significance, and I am confident that better sources can be found to back these claims. The current sources, while they may appear promotional or limited in scope, offer a starting point. I am more than willing to contribute further to the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

I kindly request that the deletion be reconsidered, and the article be allowed to remain in article space while I work on improving the content and references. Additionally, I would be open to collaborating with other editors to strengthen the article’s foundation and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain how this is an interview? Yes, there is an accompanying news video that involves interviewing someone, but the news article itself doesn't appear to be an interview. And it is explicitly about the history of the temple. Silver seren^C 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to express deep concern and strong opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. This temple is not just a structure of stone; it represents the heart and soul of a community that holds it dear. For those who are connected to it, Parbad Kali Mandir is a place of spiritual importance, cultural richness, and historical significance.

It deeply saddens me to see that such a meaningful and revered place might be erased from the pages of Wikipedia due to issues of notability. Parbad Kali Mandir is more than just a local landmark—it is a symbol of devotion, a living history that has shaped generations. This temple has been a site of prayer, peace, and reflection for countless people, and its significance goes far beyond what is easily captured in a few sources.

I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable and independent sources, but the cultural weight this temple carries in the region is undeniable. The lack of independent, scholarly articles on it does not diminish its true value. To erase this article would not just be the deletion of a page, but the erasure of a piece of history that holds deep emotional and spiritual ties for so many.

I sincerely ask for your compassion and understanding. Rather than deletion, I urge you to allow this article to remain in article space. With the support of the Wikipedia community, this entry can be improved, expanded, and enriched to meet the required standards, all while preserving the essence of what makes Parbad Kali Mandir so important to so many.

Please reconsider, and let the memory of this sacred site live on, not just for those who know it, but for future generations to understand its significance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find additional news sources (or published books) covering the temple in Hindi or just other Indian news sources we were unable to find, that would be helpful. Silver seren^C 16:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accretion/dilution analysis

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

does not comply with, WP:GNG, This article is based on what is established in this external encyclopedia to Wikipedia Iban14mxl (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How can it fail WP:BASIC if it is not even about a person? You have given no proper reasoning whatsoever for this article to be deleted. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bascom Corner, Indiana

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

An intersection with some random houses around it, but other than Baker I have nothing on this barring a bald statement that it is an unincorporated town from a county history dating to 2021, so it could be dependent on us. Other book hits were exceedingly few and were all gazetteers. We really need more documentation than this. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

America West Airlines Flight 556

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Almost entirely unsourced, the two sources here don't help notability (unreliable, primary), I searched for sources and found none helpful. Also quite poorly written (the pilots over and over and over) PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Aviation, and Arizona. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here except an account of two pilots convicted of being drunk on the job. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any sustained coverage of the incident. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to America West Airlines § Accidents and incidents (where the incident is mentioned) and merge Flight 556's references to that page. This aviation incident is not much in terms of significance, and my WP:BEFORE search has barely found any of Flight 556's WP:LASTING impact. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 10:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Radio

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

Does not appear to be notable in itself given lack of coverage of the company that I could find. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Duck (nickname)

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

Fails WP:GNG; little to no significant coverage. The Independent piece is the only one that contains any discussion about the nickname more substantial than "someone called Trump 'Donald Duck'". Even that discussion is limited to random online reactions, and is more about Christie than the nickname itself. The Politico piece shares Trump's reaction but contains even less coverage than the Indepdendent. I couldn't find better sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTSCANDAL. This is nothing more than childish name calling. — Maile (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Also, it would need far more notability to warrant a page of its own; I would think a mention on Donald Duck would suffice, although as it is now I don't think it even has enough notability for that. jolielover♥talk 06:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have had an automatic deletion Iban14mxl (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donald "Duck" Dunn. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2025 stock market crash

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

If this turns into a prolonged market correction, there may be a need for a broader article. As is, the 2025 stock market crash at best lasted for a week between April 2 and April 9 (?) and it seems unnecessary to have a timeline for a 7 day event. The article largely duplicates info from the fairly short parent article. satkara❈talk 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. satkara❈talk 01:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this should be deleted based on WP:TOOSOON. Right now a full crash on the level of the dotcom bubble or the subprime bubble or the great depression bubble has yet to happen.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm an Eventualist, but not that much of an Eventualist. kencf0618 (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate in draftspace for now. It could be expanded on and potentially moved back to mainspace when/if a future crash occurs. Given Trump’s erratic economic demands a future crash is not out of the question. ApexParagon (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON applies here, no indication of lasting notability. Let'srun (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Lynn to Avondale shared path

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

I cannot find any RS providing SIGCOV, just news releases covering the announcement. The current sourcing is just two different advocacy groups and Auckland Transport. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. This really only had coverage at local level. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to either Transport in Auckland#Walking and cycling or Cycling in Auckland, which does mention a 1998 "Walking and Cycling Plan" in Cycling in Auckland#Attitudes. There does not seem to be an article about pathways in Auckland, which would be a good merge target. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cycling in Auckland#Facilities. I think the lack of coverage is being overstated, as there is more than "just news releases." I also would describe Greater Auckland as more of an urbanism-focused blog than an advocacy group and will point out that one of the sources from them was actually a guest post by a local board member (not that it really changes anything). Nonetheless, I agree that it's not enough to warrant its own article. Traumnovelle, if you're the one doing the merging, please merge more than just one to two sentences this time or let someone else do it (seeing as Gadfium also thought you didn't merge enough content on another article recently). Cycling in Auckland is probably a good merge target for now, seeing as it gets into the specifics a bit too much for Transport in Auckland. MangoMan11 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Highways Authority

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

Not notable, promotional article Loewstisch (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's notable or not I'm not sure (I don't know how we assess the notability of government agencies) but the article is not in the slightest bit promotional. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ministry of Roads and Highways (Ghana) of which this is a department. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Loewstisch: Did you assess (WP:BEFORE) the extensive press coverage since 1974 to present? MarioGom (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Government agencies are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some coverage in digitised newspapers, including one listing of the top 10 national (US) internet providers in 1997 - Epoch is listed at number 7. I'll see what more I can find and add to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Any luck? Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added sources and info from digitised newspapers (and a bit more info from the existing sources). A Google Books search shows that there is also some coverage in computer magazines, which I have not (yet) included - I will try to include this one [17] at least (though IT is really outside my areas of expertise or interest). I think there is just enough significant coverage for it to meet WP:NCORP (including the ISP Planet article - its age and the fact that the publication no longer exists are irrelevant.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RebeccaGreen, the InfoWorld article is based entirely on information provided by the company - that isn't "independent Content" - fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP criteria, no sourcing available that is both in-depth and "independent content". HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically sources are all brief, routine business announcements, and I don't find anything more substantial. I will check back in case someone finds something better. Lamona (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist in the hopes of finding more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro Yoshino

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

With 7 J3 appearances, [18], he doesn't seem notable, but as he played in Brazil briefly there may be stuff out there. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Brazil. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia only consists of routine announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Have fleshed out article with two in-depth articles detailing his time in Brazil, as well as multiple other smaller articles. Meets GNG. Zênite (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh wow, fantastic additions Zênite! I would be very happy to keep the article now after the WP:HEY. I can't speedy close this due to Clara's delete but I will ping @Clariniie: to ask her to look at it again :) RossEvans19 (talk) - 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources from Targma seem to have significant coverage: 2020 and 2024. I'm just not sure if the source is reliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of these from Targma is one I independently thought worth further discussion, below. However no one has addressed the question of reliability. Isn't this primary reporting of team news? As it stands that is not a clear pass to me, but would be happy to have the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I found this in Brazilian media [19], [20], basically talking about his signing by Sport Capixaba in 2016 and summarizing his time in Brazil. I don't know if it's enough, but it can certainly help. Svartner (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer announcements do not count as significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show (apparently - AGF!) notability. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak delete.. changed course here after more recent considerations and especially in light of Sirfurboy's comments and further source review. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a chain of trust issue here if we say per the above editor, and that editor only says that sources "apparently" show notability. Are we reading the sources here? I haven't yet, but making this comment to request a relist since we are on day 7, and I would need some time to do so. On the face of it, the page looks reasonable, but a source review would be good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I have now conducted my source review. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliables secondary sources. There are 16 sources currently on the page, although, in fact, multiple articles from the same outlet will count as a single source for purposes of GNG. There are thus potentially 10 there. My source review looks at all 16, but treats like sources together. There are a couple that we could discuss further, but on the face of it, I am not certain we have any suitable sources and I am reasonably clear we don't have multiple sources. Source assessment:

1. & 14. [21] [22]- Primary / not independent -

2. [23] Listing, not SIGCOV. Primary?

3. [24] WP:SPS - blog. Not a WP:RS. Not SIGCOV - passing mention.

4. [25] - Interview. WP:PRIMARY per policy. Not independent.

5. [26] - This appears to speak about the subject, and have some relevant background, but it doesn’t look much like a reliable source. What is it?

6 & 7. [27], [28] - Club news is primary.

8, 10 & 11. [29] [30] [31]Reporting of team announcements - primary.

9. & 15. [32] [33] - Team reports are primary. The second of these (source 15) has more in depth information about the subject, although it is yielded from an interview and in a source that appears primary. I will mark it as a maybe, however, to indicate this is one we might discuss further.

&

12, 13 [34] [35] - Team announcements - primary.

16. [36] - Reports an appointment - primary.

I will certainly consider a redirect as a WP:ATD - perhaps to a team? Or is he mentioned elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 6 and 7 are from GE (Grupo Globo), the largest sports portal in Brazil, so they are not primary. Svartner (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. It is not the quality of the source that makes them primary, it is the content. I agree it is a good source, but they are primary because all they have is a brief news report about him joining the team. Source 6 has Tigre Linharense confirmed the arrival of 19-year-old Japanese midfielder Yutaro Yoshino, who is already with the rest of the squad finalising their pre-season in Atibaia, São Paulo. and nothing more. As well as being primary, of course, that is not SIGCOV, so either way it is out. Source 7 is fuller, with 3 paragraphs about the page subject arriving at the club. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the subject himself, but we are told he has arrived and will be playing on Wednesday. Also note that it says "Sport-ES received news..." So this is classic club news reporting. We are told a player has been signed, arrived and will play in the next match. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: It is what is in the report that makes this primary. In any case, what could we use from that report to write the page? We cannot even say he did play on that date, because we only have this report that he was meant to. There is no secondary information about the player from which an encyclopaedic page could be written. 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources perfectly cover his formative period in Brazilian football. The question is which sources cover the period of his return to Japan. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Miminity: Maybe you can help with the Japanese sources. Svartner (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I found on JP name search is just primary sources and bunch of routine coverage. Here is the profile on Ultra Soccer, Gekisaka. JP wiki has nothing worth mentioning. The portuguese sources are beyond my scope so I cannot vote. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @Sirfurboy's analysis. #5 (COJB) appears to be a club he belonged to ("I hope this will be the case for Yoshino and the other members who have left COJB.") and is thus not independent. #15 (Tagma interview) appears to be hosted, SB Nation-style, on the fan "web magazine" for YSCC. I can't find any info on editorial control, but it seems to be a one-man operation from the articles I can find. Doubtful it is RS. JoelleJay (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per source analysis by Sirfurboy and JoelleJay. Of the sources listed, only #15 is possibly GNG-conforming (the reliability of the source is questionable though there is apparent significant, independent coverage). That alone wouldn't be enough to allow the subject pass GNG, which generally expects multiple references. Frank Anchor 20:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frank Anchor. Even only one significant coverage provided is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Yes, only Source #15 contains WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - @Iljhgtn:, should still be a weak keep at least... Idk how [37] ("a graduate of YS Academy. His calm tone and smile give this impression. But people like this always have something burning inside them. He left his hometown of Yokohama and honed his skills in Brazil. The language and culture are different. He survived in a country with a completely different security situation. Behind his gentle expression is a strong, courageous man. A fan of professional wrestling. He is fluent in Portuguese"), [38] ("After graduating from junior high school, he learned the language while playing in Brazil. In 2022, while he was undergoing rehabilitation, he also served as an interpreter for Brazilian player Rizzi, who was a member of YSCC's futsal team"), [39], ("went to Brazil at the age of 15 and played there for about six and a half years, and then built a professional career in Japan"), [40], ("Yoshino, who joined YS Yokohama in 2020, played in seven league games that season, but did not play in 2021 or 2022") combined with sources about his inuries and signings do ot and pro appearances does noit meet critria. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the Lucas Kubr AfD that the issue of Q+A interviews has already been raised with you (apparently repeatedly). These are Q+A interviews, and cannot be used to establish notability per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that Q&A interviews can be used on articles if there is large/significant independent analysis more than those. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is too long and meta to be discussed here, but there is certainly more to be said. Guidance is at WP:IV. But in this case, all we have is primary information that is excluded per policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Saks

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards.
But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Moderate Keep: It already has bare minimum of sources + this source from Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I seen worse cases where there's nothing to be done, and the deletion is reserved for these cases. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a media source that is not about him in any substantive or notability-building sense. What bare minimum of GNG-worthy sourcing does that add up to? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination. He hasn’t yet achieved enough coverage or notoriety to merit keeping the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DeLeon (band): Changing my vote. Saks has coverage, but mostly in connecting with his bands. His podcast "has been recognized as a 2020 Webby Honoree and listed among Apple Podcasts' top shows in children's music education", but the article references a self-published source, and I couldn't find anything solid. Redirect to Deleon, because it seems more beefy with info, and The LeeVees potentially lack notability. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on this redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the scroll.in piece referenced in the article does contain some analysis such as suggesting the tv channel is set up to promote positive news rather than the negative stories that have surfaced about the church, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: WP:GNG typically requires evidence from multiple independent, reliable sources providing such coverage to establish notability, or perhaps exceptionally deep coverage in a single source. My WP:BEFORE search didn't uncover other sources offering this level of independent analysis, suggesting this might be an isolated mention rather than evidence of wider significant coverage. Therefore, I maintain that the subject currently fails WP:GNG based on the overall sourcing found. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV. Although mentioned a little more in-depth in 2019 here and here, as well as in passing in 2024, I can not find any other sources at this point that can support a claim of notability. Furthermore, there are limited reliable sources that cover this channel, with the exception of The New Indian Express.— Angelita dela Rosa 22:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness (TV channel)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the addition of the official website as a source, while potentially useful for verifying basic facts per WP:ABOUTSELF, does not contribute towards establishing notability under WP:GNG. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and an organization's own website is inherently not independent (WP:IS). The core issue raised in the nomination – the lack of such independent coverage found during the WP:BEFORE search – remains unaddressed. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per total absence of sources. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last attempt to reach some kind of quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy Flashboards

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to Remedy Corp. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure we need a reference for a redirect, do we? I looked and found passing refs but nothing sufficient to establish notability which is why I’m recommending a redirect. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia redirects should have a mention in the redirected page, but there is currently no mention as there are no references. Otherwise fake redirects could be created without such control. Clenpr (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a logical redirect target, but without a mention at the target it's likely to confuse people in a future RfD. Do we have anything worth saying about it at this target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Langford (politician)

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

Candidates for political office rarely meet WP:NPOL notability. This is no exception. Coverage is limited to sources that we would largely find marginally unreliable (moreso no consensus, but leaning UNREL), i.e. Post-2013 Newsweek, BoingBoing, and a variety of non-notable blogs. If he wins in November we can reassess, but as of right now, he is a minor candidate who does not meet GNG or NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with the nom. All the refs fail WP:SIRS, so this fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are not stellar, and coverage appears to only be a result of the subject's candidacy. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The candidacy of Kyle Langford, though only 2 months in the making, has already achieved such notoriety and breadth of support that it would not only be counter-productive to the voters of California who have a right to see this notable candidate in his own Wikipedia page to delete it, but it would be fecklessly disadvantageous to the future of Wikipedia's relationships with political candidates. To deem Newsweek for instance as obscure or non-notable is utterly asinine. Newsweek is currently the 3rd most read political magazine, reaching 100 million readers per month, and Mr. Langford has already been featured in 2 articles in this magazine of extraordinary notability. Mr. Langford has also achieved an exceptional 6th place in the most recent Emerson College poll, and yet, when his performance was added onto the 2026 California gubernatorial election Wikipedia page, it was removed for no reason whatsoever. Mr. Langford has also been featured on Bill Maher's show, which has an audience of millions of people. In short, to deny Mr. Langford a Wikipedia page would be a vile attempt to willfully ignore a candidacy of such immense consequence as has hardly been seen in the history of California. The credibility of Wikipedia lies in its ability to recognize hidden notability, the capacity for notability, and the markers of success which Mr. Langford exhibits. Failure to publish this article would be an irreparable stain on the credibility of Wikipedia, which Wikipedia may be unable to recover from. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - German (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur with Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - German. This article should not be deleted. Candidates who poll at 2 percent often have Wikipedia articles. Look at the 2025 NYC mayoral election for reference. Individuals polling at 1 or 2 percent get their own pages. Indeed, many of them did other things too, but Kyle Langford is also known for other things such as the Bay Area Men's Network, and being a construction manager. This article should not be deleted. High Chief Editor (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoffeeCup HTML Editor

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Why does it fail that, @Clenpr:? If you don't expand any of these reasonings in your own words I will be NAC closing this group of nominations with the next couple days because I'm tired of these nominations you and others put forward where those voting are supposed to figure out why outside a WP: cite you're seeking deletion. And this is one of the more well-known consumer HTML editors; it will need sources but I'm not deleting without more information from you. Nathannah • 📮 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this subject is notable but I’m ok with the nomination’s terseness. If the subject is non-notable, what else would you say? “I looked and looked but found no refs” - that doesn’t add anything more. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar indicates there are sources out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference? Do you have references for all the page content? Clenpr (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m traveling or I would have added refs to the article. I’ll see if I can do that later this week. In the meantime, if you click the link I gave you, you’ll see what I mean. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 11:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Google Scholar results can be misleading - do we have sigcov?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To answer @Asilvering, there does appear to be sigcov available. There is at least decent amount of coverage of the software in a html "for dummies" type book: [41].

Further comment: @A. B. A reason that @Nathannah may be asking for more from the nominator in this case is due to rapid nomination of many articles for AfD by the same user. It's happened for software and songs and GI joe characters in the last few weeks which has led to some discussion about new guidelines for AfD over at the village pump: Wikipedia talk:Speedy_keep#Low-effort_mass_nominations. Given WP:NSOFT is an essay and not an official guidelines using it as the sole reason for nomination can also be considered invalidating.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly a notable and citable piece of software. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OWBasic

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects. ApexParagon (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There does not appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage. Interesting use of basic for Casio PDAs, but it's a very niche group of hobbyists. Most information is primary or Casio PDA forums. The ancient website for the software is here for citing in redirect:[42]. Redirecting to casio PDA page is also a possibility.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailing

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

While American Sailing does offer training sources, this sailing program fails WP:NORG. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 5562

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

Notability tag has been on article since January 2021. No other information added to establish notability. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 16:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.

[2] Per WP:GNG, WP:WHYN and WP:EVENTCRIT, we would need significant secondary coverage^[a] and/or in-depth coverage of the event. None of the sources really go beyond reporting that the plane crashed and the subsequent reactions like this or this. Then there's this article by FlightGlobal but it's just repeating what Rosaviatsia released in a statement and there's no actual analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis behind it, hence the majority of sources are primary. This fails WP:NOTNEWS#1 which states that 'Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source, which is basically what the news articles are. There's also no continued coverage of the accident post-August 2020.

[b]

[a]