Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 01	April 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Donald Trump's Liberation Day speech

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

Speech itself is not notable—hence, not specifically mentioned by any of the sources—and no claim of significance is made here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the speech itself isn't notable, but much of the background/content/reactions relate specifically to today's batch of "reciprocal" tariffs, which may be notable on their own (as both long-anticipated and very significant even independent of the broader tariffs in the second Trump administration, so I wouldn't be opposed to restructuring this article into April 2025 worldwide United States tariffs or Donald Trump "Liberation Day" tariffs or something along those lines as a partial WP:ATD. DecafPotato (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I second this idea. I do think these “liberation day” tariffs are notable on their own that would be useful for its own article. Several economies including the EU are currently planning countermeasures and an eventual global trade war may result. Jmccfip (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just did a web search for news on some thing called a liberation day speech and found on the first page NPR, The New York Times, CTV, Mirror UK, and Bloomberg coverage. WP:GHITS is a lazy defense of an article, I admit – almost as lazy as the nomination which didn't even bother to offer a reasonable rationale. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This speech will be talked about for many years to come. The implications of it will be felt globally. GWA88 (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a significant moment for the world and turning point 182.172.103.25 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:TOOSOON. None of the sources in the article treat the speech itself as notable; rather, they are discussing its implications for economic policy. Also, this topic is already covered at Tariffs in the second Trump administration. Arguments to keep should focus on why we need a separate article about the speech. Astaire (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration/Delete. The speech itself is not notable whatsoever, the tariffs are, and we already have an article about the topic. A lot of this article is duplicative too. Reywas92^Talk 02:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies here. As others have also pointed out, the speech itself is not notable, but rather the policy implications. This is reflected in reliable source coverage of the speech. The actual policy implications of the speech are already well-covered at Tariffs in the second Trump administration. WMSR (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tariffs in the second Trump administration per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. The policy idea is notable and should have a stand-alone page. The speech may not need a stand-alone page. --Enos733 (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tariffs in the second Trump administration. This article is not notable and WP:NOTNEWS applies to this article. Wikipedia isn't The New York Times, nor The Times, nor any newspaper or news agency that pops into your head. An editor from Mars (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tariffs in the second Trump administration. The speech isn't independently notable enough from the policies imo. If the speech individually in the future is recalled more then maybe it can have an article, but for now it doesn't seem notable enough. seefooddiet (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify This article would likely be useful as a standalone (maybe under a different name) involving these global “Liberation Day” tariffs as several economies (such as the EU) are preparing countermeasures. This would mean a global trade war outside of the trade war against China Jmccfip (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While the policies brought forward are indeed notable, the speech alone is not notable on its own. This would be better integrated into the existing tariff article. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 07:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Pat Buchanan

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

Politician who has only competed in one general election. All information can easily be merged to the main article.मल्ल (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and Politics. मल्ल (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, United States of America, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambanteinn

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

Stub consisting mainly of quotations from primary sources. Everything else is just a summary of Skírnismál. Only cites one secondary source, and beyond Pettit, the only thing that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [1] a single article in Dutch. Any other mention of gambanteinn on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR is little more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, and usually a small part of a much more general discussion of Skírnismál, Hárbarðsljóð, or North Germanic magic, such as [2]. Fails WP:GNG, and is too short to merge. On balance, sources seem to focus mostly on Skírnismál, so I think a redirect there would make the most sense - or perhaps to Seiðr. Masskito (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Poetry, Mythology, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete if no additional sources have been discovered during this AfD. I cannot find much myself. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addtion to the mentioned extended entry in Neophilologus, Gambanteinn also has an entry of around 2 pages in Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, p. 300-302. And many shorter other sources are by no means trivial mentions, like here on the etymology and here. So there's enough to establish notability in my view. Additionally, "too short to merge" does not make sense to me. While here we have at least one referenced sentence of definition, the two targets suggested by Masskito don't even have a mention yet, and are therefore not well-suited for a pure redirect; and List of mythological objects as alternative does at least have an entry on Gambanteinn, but that's both shorter and unreferenced. Daranios (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Neophilologus article, as well as the sources found by Daranios. That's more than enough to pass WP:SIGCOV in my view. – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found which shows that the book has much notability outwith of Rudolf Friedrich Kurz and therefore seems to be an unnecessary fork JMWt (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Mississippi, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure about the journal itself, but its translations have been reviewed abundantly, which to me demonstrates its notability. The version edited by J. N. B. Hewitt, Myrtis Jarrell has been reviewed in Ethnohistory (here), and the The Mississippi Valley Historical Review (here). There also seems to be a review in Anthropos (here), but the page is blank for some reason, even though highlighting it shows there is text. A different version, edited by Carla Kelly, and titled ON THE UPPER MISSOURI: The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852 has been reviewed in Journal of the West (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that a review for the translation could be considered a review for the journal. I suppose that a good question to ask here, however, is whether or not the journal really needs to be covered separately from its author. As far as I can tell, it looks like this is his big claim to fame, so the question here is this:

The author is pretty much best known for his journals. The book in question is his collected journals. Does this really need to be covered in two articles or can we do it adequately in one? Everything in the journal article appears to be in the article on the author, more or less. The only thing that's missing is the quote.

My personal thought is that we redirect this to the author's page. We flesh out the article and create a new section that is specifically for the translations and publication history of the journals. Basically, the life section covers the experiences and the new section would cover the more technical stuff like translations, publication history, and so on. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vernacular Music Research

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

Unfortunately, I can't find enough sources for this to pass GNG (though I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong). There's an hour-long presentation and... just nothing else. Even the obituary of founder Thornton Hagert has just a few sentences about it. Hagert himself doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC for his musicology work or WP:MUSICBIO as a musician. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Museums and libraries, and Pennsylvania. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found anything on the archive. For Thornton Hagert, though, there is a 3 column obituary in the Philadelphia Daily News [3]; he was asked by the Smithsonian to recreate a 1924 concert, and produced 10 page liner notes for the resulting album, which was nominated for two Grammys in 1982 (Best Historical Album and Best Liner notes) [4] (album review in the Institute for Studies in American Music Newsletter. here: [5]); review of another album for which he wrote 6 pages of liner notes in The San Francisco Examiner [6] and of another one here [7]; and there are other reviews of his writings coming up in a Google Scholar search. It seems to me that he would probably meet WP:AUTHOR (etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on RebeccaGreen's work, would it be sensible to move the current article to Thornton Hagert ("Thornton Hagert was a musicologist and jazz historian who founded the Vernacular Music Archive, an archive...")? Initially, the result would be a bit of a coatrack article, but it would retain what's of use from Vernacular music research, and it would form a stub with the potential to grow into something useful on the man himself. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article has been here since 2011 and has not improved. Is not notable. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:RebeccaGreen. are you arguing for a Keep here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckney Hill

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

Cuckney Hill does not meet WP:NGEO guidelines. I can find no significant discussion of it, only mentions of it as a place to drive through and a mention of greenery planted to attract game. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a place to drive along. According to both current maps and old maps like https://maps.nls.uk/view/101602494 (1884) https://maps.nls.uk/view/115390009 (1918) and https://maps.nls.uk/view/189228330 (1955) this is the name of a section of the A60 road, not of a hill. The name is written along the road rather than horizontally. This article seems to be a lie. I couldn't find anything about Metz Lodge or the tree plantations collectively. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a lie, I think the road goes over the top of Cuckney Hill and was named that after the fact - this suggests the A60 bisects it. I found cites in books including the 1868 Gazetteer of Great Britain, and I'm not sure what to make of this but it cites a map from the 1830s. If the various mentions aren't enough to get to a full article, it should be merged or redirected into Cuckney. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But cites of it don't meet WP:GNG because they're trivial mentions of it. I haven't been able to find significant, discussion of it in depth, and depictions on maps doesn't confer notability. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search of the British Newspaper Archive shows that in 1899, Cuckney Hill was described as a "steep declivity"; there have been many fatal accidents there. In the late 1980s, British Coal proposed to extend the Welbeck pit tip to Cuckney Hill - residents protested that it could lead to an Aberfan-type disaster, and said "Until we appointed a geologist, they did not know or accept the existence of the geological junction on the hillside. "They are proposing to put a hill on top of a hill. Cuckney Hill already has a long history of land slippages in wet weather." (Maybe there's a geological report somewhere, about this geological junction.) In 1914, Cuckney Hill was selected as the site of a new cemetery; it was still called Cuckney Hill Cemetery in 1998, when it reached capacity and was extended. The geography of Nottinghamshire names Cuckney Hill as one of the chief points in the range between Worksop and Nottingham, and a 1913 newspaper article called "Mansfield Tours - A Run through the Dukeries - Sherwood's Beauties" says "From the top of Cuckney Hill as fair a view as one might wish to see is spread out before one, and as I dipped down the other side the red-tiled roofs surrounding the ancient church of Cuckney in a delightful setting of green, were prominent in the picture."

I notice that there is a concurrent suggested merge to Church Warsop, which confuses the issue of this AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marss

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

The article have used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Did WP:BEFORE but found only this trivia coverage from Kotaku [8]; thus zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1st ESPN source was good, the 2nd is usable but those are not enough. Other sources might be also reliable, but it just have trivia coverages (not sigcov, and wouldn't notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable and seems to not be encyclopedic. There are many tournaments and people win each time, but no page exists for most. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meenal Choubey

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

Mayors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chhattisgarh. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the guideline also mentions Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage - there are many news about her from google search.
Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Bash007, can you atleast give 3 sources? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok @Reading Beans..

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12] Uncle Bash007 (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Bash007, these are routine coverages about things that were said. What we look for are in-depth, independent coverage in multiple reliable sources and these doesn’t cut it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my comment. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of Raipur passes WP:GNG have added references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]^[6]^[7]

References

^ Bajpai, Shashank Shekhar (4 March 2025). "रायपुर महापौर मीनल चौबे ने संभाली कुर्सी, शहर के चहुंमुखी विकास का किया वादा". Nai Dunia (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ Marut raj (28 March 2025). "रायपुर में 4 नए फ्लाई ओवर और कामकाजी महिलाओं के लिए 3 हॉस्टल बनेंगे". Sootr (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ "RMC's 1.5k crore budget prioritises urban devpt". The Times of India. 29 March 2025. Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ Hitavada, The (6 February 2025). "BJP's Minal Choubey pledges to prioritise basic amenities". The Hitavada. Retrieved 1 April 2025.
^ "Raipur: जानें कौन हैं मीनल चौबे, जिसे बीजेपी ने रायपुर नगर निगम से मेयर प्रत्याशी के लिये चुनावी रण में उतारा". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). 27 January 2025. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
^ Mallick, Avdhesh (28 March 2025). "Raipur Mayor Meenal Chaubey Presents ₹1529.53 Crore RMC Budget, Focus On Women Empowerment & Infrastructure". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 2 April 2025.
^ Behera, Partha Sarathi (1 March 2025). "Develop public facilities based on citizen input: Raipur mayor Meenal Chaubey". The Times of India. Retrieved 2 April 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Biniakounou

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

Declined prod. The added sources are not indepth. [13], [14] and [15] are merely small 1 line mentions and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Keeley

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

Created by a WP:SPA in 2009. The creator contributed the bulk (62%) of the edits to the article and has not edited since the article was created. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage with few cites to reliable, independent sources. Reads like a resume and is little more than a promotional accomplishments listing designed to sell or "puff piece." Many unsourced statements. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Theatre, Law, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the content of the article itself indicates notability. Orange sticker (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yam Bahadur Roka

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

Fails Notability. Whatever sources given are all primary. Article has promotional tone. Loaded with unsourced info indicating COI. Immediately Moved back into mainspace without any improvement. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what promotional tone have you found there. I do think I have provided all the references required and the references I have found.

Let me check the sources and update again Sailess(Hikari) (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahmatula786

Can you now check and see the resources for newspaper, scholar and other refrences. Sailess(Hikari) (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable. Not much is from newspapers or broader sources. I think it needs to be improved and go back to draft space. There lots of info and it makes me think there is someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hara (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. Article created in 2004. Not to be confused with The Hara, which seems to be notable. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Romania. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has been here since 2004 and has not improved. Is not notable. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Woods (basketball)

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

Disputed draftification, undeleted by request. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means it must be discussed here if it doesn't meet our criteria. Fails WP:BIO 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and North Carolina. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCOLLATH as the head coach of a Division I program and meets GNG, see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being nominated for deletion? The page was created for an active NCAA Division 1 head coach of UNCW. Mr7thgalaxy (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beanie's sources. Rlendog (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, and WP:NCOLLATH, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Una Historia de Ovejas y Luciérnagas (película)

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

No coverage at all to support notability. Social media, an article by an Adventist organization with which the crew is affiliated, and a few aggregation sites with a plot summary or cast list. Google ran dry on this quickly. No relevant sources in the article either. For what it's worth, the name of the creator, Elasnoparlante, is the name of the production company, El Asno Parlante. Largoplazo (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. Largoplazo (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've done a quick translation - if anyone is a native speaker please check behind me - I was relying heavily on Google Translate. I got the gist, but every check would help. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency's sake, I've given the user a softer block for a promotional username. They're definitely here to promote the movie, but they didn't add it to any other pages, so giving them a bit of the benefit of the doubt. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This hasn't received any coverage in independent, reliable sources that can give notability. The only coverage has been through primary sources (official website and places associated with the movie), junk hits, routine database listings, and social media posts. No one in the production is notable and there's nothing to suggest that this film warrants coverage anywhere on Wikipedia. Maybe coverage will come in the future, but I'll be honest and say that it's unlikely. Religious films tend to get solidly ignored by the press unless there's a controversy (Saving Christmas), it's a mega-mega blockbuster (The Passion of the Christ), it's attached to a major franchise (Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie), or it just manages to get super lucky. Those exceptions are pretty few and far between. This just isn't notable. I don't mind if anyone wants to take this into their userspace, but otherwise it's a delete for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: until release in October and then see. -Mushy Yank. 09:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until October to see if it will get any more press attention on release. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to know if those editors arguing for Deletion are okay with Draftification since we don't have a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS to my nom: no harm in draftifying it, I guess. Largoplazo (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna McCarthy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with nomination. Jenna is linked to sources besides her own. She is an advocate for the truth as shown in the substack article referenced on her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeJMyhre (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that substack isn't a reliable source, so this has been removed. No comment on the notability of McCarthy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Jenna has a large national following from her books and TED talks, and a wonderful daily satire page on Substack. 2600:1700:79B0:F740:64D5:6B98:4232:4CDB (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also pointed out that the conspiracy theorist label was wrong. They claimed that I was not presenting a neutral point of view. Below are my comments:

My comments were a neutral point of view. The text I was trying to change said:

"Jenna McCarthy is an American conspiracy theorist." with no links or arguments to support the claim.

I tried to change it to "Jenna McCarthy has been called an American conspiracy theorist." which is true without argument or need for support.

I then also included an article from Jenna McCarthy that explained what are and are not conspiracy theories. This of course was her opinion which was explained in my edit. To not include any relevant arguments and simply claim that 'she is a conspiracy theorist' is not a neutral point of view. You can't remove my edits trying to correct your current bias and claim that I don't have a neutral view 24.143.78.9 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article no longer mentions the "conspiracy theorist" label. In any case, this is not relevant to whether the article should be deleted. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Are you sure this wasn't nominated for deletion because I pointed out that it was libelous to call someone a "conspiracy theorist"? I see you changed THAT. Hmmmmm. 2600:1700:60:1170:896B:C934:647B:6353 (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I se a few articles on Google news here and there. Also, herein is a brief description of her TED talk on their website. This is not an endorsement of her views on anything. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The body of work consists of material that in the past has been censored and dismissed as "conspiracy based". But as with most COVID "conspriacies", much of it has turned out to be true. No downside to keeping, and not a good look to continue censoring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmatich (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed MikeJMyhre (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This looks like the person we're discussing [16] and would be a book review, but one isn't enough. I don't find anything else about this person, this likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, Oaktree b, and Anonrfjwhuikdzz. This subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO on multiple reliable sources, and reviews do not appear to support WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 22:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, she does appear to be a prolific writer, according to Baker & Taylor Author Biographies: McCarthy is a writer whose work has appeared in more than 40 national and international magazines including: Allure, Parenting, Shape, Fit Pregnancy, Babytalk, Glamour, Seventeen, New Parent, Real Simple, New Woman, Self, and in anthologies such as the popular Chicken Soup series. She's had a decent amount of book reviews, and she co-authored (with Pierre Kory), a top-ten national bestseller. I found a lot of newspapers that quoted her and/or mentioned her books, but no significant coverage about her – that I could find. So I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete the article.

Lola Knows A Lot. Kirkus Reviews, 6/1/2016, Vol. 84, Issue 11, page 129
Lola Knows a Lot. Publishers Weekly, 3/28/2016, Vol. 263, Issue 13, page 89
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Handy Man You Married. Publishers Weekly. 8/22/2011, Vol. 258 Issue 34, pages 57-58
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. Kirkus Reviews. 10/15/2011, Vol. 79 Issue 20, page 1905
If It Was Easy, They'd Call the Whole Damn Thing a Honeymoon: Living With and Loving the TV-Addicted, Sex-Obsessed, Not-So-Han:dy Man You Married. St. Petersburg Times, 10/23/2011, page 7L
Jenna McCarthy discusses her book, "If It Was Easy, They'd Call The Whole Damn Thing A Honeymoon". 2011, Today Show
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Publishers Weekly, 2/13/2017, Vol. 264, Issue 7, page 73
Poppy Louise Is Not Afraid of Anything. Booklist, 2/15/2017, Vol. 113, Issue 12, page 83
The Parent Trip: From High Heels and Parties to High Chairs and Potties. Foreword Magazine, May-June 2008
Maggie Malone and the Mostly Magical Boots. The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, July-August 2014, Vol. 67, Issue 11, pages 585-586
Maggie Malone and the Mostly Magical Boots. Library Media Connection, January-February 2015, Vol. 33, Issue 4, page 58
War on Ivermectin: The Medicine that Saved Millions and Could Have Ended the Pandemic. co-author with Pierre Kory, June 2023 – Top 10 National Bestseller (data from independent and chain bookstores, book wholesalers and independent distributors nationwide - Publishers Weekly) ProQuest 2826943152 – Isaidnoway (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and AFAICT neither of the Kirkus reviews are part of the paid Kirkus indie programme [17] [18] Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (presumably) writing nonsense about covid is not a reason for deletion. The question is whether she's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. Given her publication list she seems notable as an author to me, hence she should be kept. Keep in mind notability of authors/journalists/writers is not an assessment of the quality or correctness of their work.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Searching newspapers.com, I found one review, of The Parent Trip [19], and several other articles where she, or one of her books, is quoted [20], [21], [22]. So there's the review I found, the one that Oaktree b and Bearian found, the Foreword Magazine review, St. Petersburg Times review, and the Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly reviews that Isaidnoway found. That's not a lot, for such a prolific author, but it's probably just enough for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Updating my vote based on sources that others have found. Given her writing on ivermectin, I do think it would be appropriate for the article to include some mention of McCarthy promoting use of ivermectin for COVID despite the lack of quality evidence. Whether or not that includes the specific label of conspiracy theorist will depend on secondary sources about her.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombic hectotriadiohedron

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

Fails meeting WP:NOTABILITY. No reliable sources in books or journals mentions about such solid. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it's discussed in the first reference and also is built into Glenn Davis's R zonohedron package , so it's actually studied. It took me a while to find it in the cited source because find in page didn't work, but it's definitely in there, and not just mentioned. Central and Adams (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Central and Adams I'm still not convinced this may help keep the article with the given source. Might need books and journals per WP:RS. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This solid is has received coverage by multiple reliable sources that contain information included in this article. I do believe that this page meets notability guidelines. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyrobyte "do believe that this meets..." Can you show reliable sources of books and journals? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source in the article [23], George W. Hart's website and this journal article: [24]. Cyrobyte (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another journal article. This one was a little hard to find because the author calls it an equilateral dodecazonohedron instead of the terms listed in this article, but it's the same little guy: Twenty Questions on Zonogons, Zonohedra, and Zonoids (PDF warning!). The author is Anton Haanegraf and the journal is Structural Topology, which includes both László Fejes Tóth and Branko_Grünbaum on its editorial board, so it's legit. Central and Adams (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Will add this to the article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As defined in this article, this is merely a zonohedron with 12 generators that happen to be in general position (no three coplanar). There is nothing special here about having 12 generators or having $2{\tbinom {12}{2}}$ faces. Unless one imposes a restriction on symmetry, there are far more than two combinatorial types of zonohedra with this many generators and faces. The first source given as a reference in this article, while not providing significant depth of coverage of this specific choice of parameters, also lists three different combinatorial types with octahedral symmetry, contradicting the bulk of the content of the nominated article which mostly goes on at length about how there are only two. Not independently notable from zonohedron and no content worth merging there. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zonohedron: per David Eppstein. Not just per his !vote here, but also per his 1996 paper on the subject. Owen× ☎ 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sevens

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 09:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John King (author): or to Peter Mason (journalist), mentioned there. And in time, if secondary sources are added, expand back into a page (Redirect with possibilities). -Mushy Yank. 09:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Two different Redirect target articles suggested here. Any more support for either one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thapaswini Poonacha

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4. Non-notable actress. This version of the article is drastically different from the previous version which was deleted in 2022. Although it's still in very poor shape, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Food and drink, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 VCU Rams men's tennis team

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSEASONS. VCU is not a historic power in tennis, nor were they particularly successful in this season, and all coverage seems to come from primary sources (from universities) rather than secondary. Jordano^5³ 21:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Virginia. Jordano^5³ 21:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSEASONS with no secondary coverage that I could find. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ronchetti

AfDs for this article:

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

As stated in the previous AfD: "Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. He's a candidate for office but has never been elected. He's not notable outside of the campaign." This individual is only noted for running two failed campaigns, and has not been elected into any office. Zinderboff (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zinderboff (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran

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

Another book that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, assuming you checked for any sources- either way, establishes no notability. (I am User:Acer-the-Protogen. My device broke and I am logged out.) 74.104.160.163 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [25] didn't check too much but that's a lot of hits. Please do before checks. Significant as the only work of its kind for quite a while [26] PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Will (1905 book)

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Middle East. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you attempt a WP:BEFORE check? Because given the circumstances about who wrote this book I would be astonished if it wasn't notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arba'in fi Ahwal-al-Mahdiyin

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

Non-notable book. 0 sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Middle East. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBOOK. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 21:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaya Cisse

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources currently in the article are either databases or originate from the teams the subject played for. A WP:BEFORE did come up with [[27]] which has depth but appears to be a WP:YOUNGATH failure. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Colorado, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), Michigan, and Tennessee. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Andreasen

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

Fails WP:GNG for WP:NPOL. There also might be a WP:NOTABILITY issue on the other hand. There is insufficient coverage for this politician, and we don't even know if they're living or not. Editz2341231 (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:NPOL as a member of European Parliament. Curbon7 (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOL says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability..." Editz2341231 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first bullet point closely: Politicians [...] who have held international [...] office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels (emphasis and ellipses mine). The European Parliament is not a local body (local bodies being municipal/county-level governments, for example), it is an international body. This person is a former MEP ([28]). Curbon7 (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the nomination is wholly imprecise and he meets both NPOL and GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KGNG-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The English Commentary of the Holy Quran

AfDs for this article:

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

I do not find the notability of this article per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Additionally, it has been tagged for notability since 2016. The book primarily cites itself as a source, which can be described as WP:OR.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find it being cited here [29], but that's hardly enough to show notability. The sources in the article are primary. I don't see enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahro Suryoyo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N and WP:GNG, search for sources find mostly social media pages that discuss the magazine and others that mention it in passing without much detail (as well as the website for the magazine) Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PopUp Bagels

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are PR and routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 19:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disagree with the assessment of the sources. I'm not sure how any source would cover a restaurant/bagel franchise, other than how it has done. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References 1, 2, and 7 seem enough to clear WP:NCORP. Article is quite promotional, though, and needs a lot of cleanup to achieve a more NPOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Airspace Control

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

Relies on a single source, information largely out of date. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Aviation, and Brazil. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neither of the cited reasons for deletion are actually reasons for deletion. This department of the Government of Brazil easily meets WP:NORG, and a Google search will turn up independent third party references to that department. The catch is you need to search for the name in Portuguese. You can start by looking at the pt:Departamento_de_Controle_do_Espaço_Aéreo article which contains sources and additional content that can be translated to the English Wikipedia. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article on pt.wiki has more sources, just needs to be transcribed. Svartner (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Republic (Bangladesh)

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

Proposing to redirect this page to National_Citizen_Party#Ideology. All the sources cover this concept only in the context of the National Citizen Party / Jatiya Nagorik Party (see [30], [31], [32], [33]). While there is coverage of this concept, it is all in the context of the party that advocates for it, so it fails the test under WP:GNG for a standalone page. (A previous WP:BLAR was contested so bringing it to AfD to establish consensus.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 16:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Citizen Party#Ideology: per nom. Imwin567 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fumiya Kobayashi

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

Played 49 times in Singapore [34] before disappearing. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Religious Liberty Association

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

Non-notable religious organisation. Few acceptable and unambiguously third-party sources found to consider against the notability criteria for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. JMWt (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Osaki

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

Non-notable runner. I was unable to find any significant coverage about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And where did you look for sources? Its obvious that a medalist at major international competitions like Osaki would have SIGCOV, and, as expected, a quick look at the corresponding Japanese article brought up just that, e.g. this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An athlete profile and a brief article? Those aren't really substantial or helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Brief?? The first one is nearly 700 words devoted to him while the second one is over 900? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even the articles in the Japanese wiki aren't the greatest sources; he's mentioned but only briefly in most of them. Some are primary sources (either sporting bodies or marathon pages), not strictly about this person. I can't find anything extra. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews or articles about the team he coaches [35], nothing I'd consider helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 ICC Champions Trophy group stage

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

Stage articles for a non-world cup tournament with just 15 matches, no need for separate stage articles as all this could be included within the parent article without being WP:TOOLONG. Vestrian24Bio 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.21 Sharp

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

Nothing to indicate this is notable enough for a standalone article; ther is probably a suitable redirect. However, not being a firearms fetishist, I have no idea what it would be. TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable, purely promotional in nature. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but possibly merge the information into the Winchester article since it's their round. And the nom might be advised to use terms other than "fetishist" when putting articles up in AfD. Intothat darkness 18:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Lime Making and uses

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

Notability. I'd speedy this if there was an appropriate category,but there isn't TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A manuscript about lime making. I'd have speedied this, zero coverage or any claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wonder if this is AI? Random bits from other websites are obviously WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC JMWt (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Fails all notability tests...can't find any reviews, etc. even mentioning this. nf utvol (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Only 1 sources?? Vitorperrut555 (talk)

Portuguese Communities Council

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

Non-notable, weak articke Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a company but a statutory Council of the Portuguese Government with public elections for the Portuguese diaspora. More info here: https://portaldascomunidades.mne.gov.pt/pt/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas

Information for Portugal's electoral commission as well: https://www.cne.pt/content/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas Diogo Costa (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In its current state as a stub it is indeed a "weak article", but that is not grounds for deletion. The council is a government advisory body and has focused coverage in governmental and independent reliable sources: [36], [37], [38], [39]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yue (talk • contribs) 18:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yue. Mccapra (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raseshwari Devi Ji

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage in the article and in BEFORE is limited to tabloid sources, trivial mentions, or unbylined coverage from WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. The third reference (Times Now) is a paid article which is not independent or reliable for establishing notability. Junbeesh (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Hinduism, and Chhattisgarh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan in Turkey

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

This is one of a series of articles by the same editor; I'd bundle them if I knew how. All the articles are like this, they are not about Ramadan customs peculiar to one country but are merely descriptions of common customs. The long list of foods (I've edited out the more preposterous bits) are likewise merely lists of commonn foods of the country, such as (in this case) kebaps. TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Islam, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prob delete - seems to me that the topic likely is notable in the sense that there probably are distinctive Turkish cultural practices during this religious time. But I'm also not convinced that the page, as it is currently framed, addresses that. Maybe someone else could try again later and make a better stab. JMWt (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do the same with all the other articles (or at least draftify). Agree with nom and JMWt that, from what I know about Ramadan and Turkish culture and from looking at the sources, much of the content is pretty generic and not necessarily specific to Turkey. The sources are not the highest quality don't really specify what makes Turkish observances unique among countries. Obviously social visits and common dinners are not any different from elsewhere. The author just translated this from Arabic wiki, but it's pretty poor writing to say lentil soup or lahmacun are Ramadan food when Turks eat these every day (if I'm wrong, the article should be clearer). Ramadan#Cultural practices is quite short and should be expanded to cover the instances where there are significant practices that may not be universal, perhaps expanded to a Ramadan by country page or similar that puts differences in context, but not standalone articles. I mean, Ramadan in the United States does have a couple US-specific facts, but then generic crap that there are Tarawih prayers just like everywhere else! Reywas92^Talk 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swadesh Bharati

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

Poet that fails WP:GNG WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Poetry, and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hints of notability, but this was all I could find [40], very brief mention. Being indexed in the VIAF shows this person is listed in other libraries, but doesn't help notability. I don't see anything else. The unsourced article isn't helping Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gladys Le Mare

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

Notability ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. ash (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've proposed this for deletion as it doesn't appear to establish more than a passing notability. The only two facts about her are that she is the co-founder of an organisation and a magazine. The stub hasn't been expanded in the last 15 years. Also, only one page appears to link to this page. Suggest a Wikidata page would be sufficient. Alternatively, the stub could be added to the page for the Society.

ash (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: the Malayan Nature Journal pops up in Gscholar where this person is mentioned [41] as the editor. This [42] and [[43]] are both by the same author but appear to show notabililty. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might meet notability as the editor of the Malayan Nature Journal, PROF, but I don't remember which point it is exacly (C3?) Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editorship is C8. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Malaysia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Animal, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the information found by User:Oaktree b, her two early publications (writing as Gladys Keay) on mites were cited by others in the scientific literature. I have added those citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Double-digit numbers of citations are generally insufficient to make a case for WP:PROF#C1 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Macedonian anti-corruption protests

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

I had doubts about the notability of the article and I am still not convinced about the notability. This article does not contain anything that is not already covered by the main article Kočani nightclub fire. The Macedonian-language edition does not contain anything unique either. While protests and tributes have occurred, these protests appear to be nowhere near the level of Serbia or Turkey. I was considering nominating this article for deletion before too, but I decided to wait in good faith in case something changes. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although you make a very good discussion, you have to understand that this page was made very recently and is yet to receive any new editions due to lack of media coverage. I had originally planned to make daily updates kind of like how some contributors do in the 2024-present Serbian anti-corruption protests page, however it was my personal issues that led to the page being outdated. However, there is a few things to tell apart

Never once had anybody stated this protest was at all at the tension level of Serbia and Turkey. Although, due to how small Macedonia really is populace and territorial-wise, it is very clear that these protests still hold significance to the pan-Balkan Revolution.
Although this page may cover the same events as the page for the Kočani nightclub fire, it is still important to note that the nightclub fire wiki was made with one direct goal, that being cover the event. There is only slight coverage of aftermath of the event. Using this logic, shouldn't we also delete the page for the Serbian anti-corruption protests because a lot of the things covered there are already covered in the Novi Sad railway station canopy collapse? Obviously not.
Let me make this clear, I am not a Macedonian and I especially have not controlled any of the things written on the Macedonian translation of the page as it is not within my control to do so.

This might seem a bit irksome, but if it takes that much, I will begin to cover more updates as the protests continue to happen.

If you have anything else to ask me, feel free to do so. MrFool Mapping (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We must have been typing at the same time, haha - I hope my response went to the original person who nominated this for deletion and not to you. I just wanted to clarify that I agree that this page should remain alive and active. Apologies if I did hit the incorrect "reply" button!

I think you worded everything perfectly regarding this. Thank you for standing up for the smaller communities that are too engulfed in tragedy right now to even check Wiki, let alone contribute to it. I hope your words are taken into consideration. Wishing you a beautiful day! FoxFables (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also worked on other articles like 2022 North Macedonia protests, which pretty much had daily mainstream coverage. There was also plenty of analysis about those protests. The coverage of these 2025 protests appears to be rather inconsistent, probably because there is no organized wave. The main article contains plenty of material about the aftermath, from investigation to tributes and etc. North Macedonia also had other mass protest movements like the 2016 Macedonian protests being one example, for which there is plenty of coverage and analysis, including in academic sources. So, even though it is a small country, there have been still mass protests. Even if this article gets deleted, it could be recreated in the future, in case something changes, with more coverage and analysis. I know that you do not have control of the Macedonian-language edition and I was just pointing out the lack of necessity for expansion from that edition. Either way, I appreciate your willingness to contribute to this topic. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite your doubts? I read this article directly after the main article on the fire and definitely learned more information. Sources are all properly listed on the page & it does contain additional information.

• I didn't know that the fire sparked interest in uncovering corruption, nor that there had been arrests made from it.

• Merely because the protests are "nowhere near the level of Serbia or Turkey" does not make them undeserving to be reported on.

• If the nominated page contained false information or was an exact replica of the Macedonia Pulse Fire page, I could understand, but comparing and belittling their community's response of mourning and protest due to similar events happening elsewhere is a terrible reason to submit this for deletion. FoxFables (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is nothing personal and it is not meant to belittle. There is already sufficient coverage in the main article. The article as it stands is a redundant content fork. Here is a cited opinion from 26 March: it is too early to predict whether this national indignation will turn into a more organised wave of protest against corruption and failed democratic institutions that have been scourging the country ever since its establishment as an independent state. Like I have written above, if something changes in the future, this article can be recreated. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the source . 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC) StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Declaration Following the Meeting Between the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Albania, the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Croatia, and the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Kosova

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

(Declined WP:PROD.) There's little reason to believe that this is more than a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. Should anything substantial and significant actually happen as a result of this event, I'm sure there will be secondary sources that will cover it, until then this needs to go to Wikinews or something. --Joy (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Croatia. Joy (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Kosovo. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of Man (song)

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NSONG, as it does not have any significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources and no major charts. Some coverage of the album itself, but not enough on the song. Propose delete and merge with The Good Witch (album). nf utvol (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Popular culture, United Kingdom, and England. nf utvol (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to either the album or the artist. Charting on streaming sites isn't considered notable. Rest of the coverage is in non-RS or just confirmation of the streaming charts. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Good Witch (album). ^Wiinter_U 16:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitar Beleliev

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

Fails Anybio, promotion, no relialbe sources Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to determine the accuracy or validity of the information or references; all of the latter are in Bulgarian. Ira Leviton (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in Bulgarian, because the person is Bulgarian. All of the articles can be translated to English via Google Chrome translate or other page translator. In that way you can valid the article's information. Also there is a Bulgarian article about the person - Димитър Белелиев. Kris2112 (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does appear PROMO, this reads like a CV. Sourcing is simply confirmation of the various job positions/functions held. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads kinda prosey and promotional. It also doesn't seem to be notable. ^Wiinter_U 16:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not prosey, it reads more like a list. ^Wiinter_U 17:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Prospect Trust

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a three-school multi-academy trust. I do not see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and don't therefore think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. If I had found any non-primary significant coverage, I'd add something about it to Sixth Form College, Farnborough, which I think was the first school in the MAT, and redirect there, but as it is I don't think there is enough even for a redirect. Tacyarg (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wim Cool

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

Aside from one incident, which is already discussed on the 2011 Senate elections page, this local politician is not notable Dajasj (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 11:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not sure, I feel like since he's a senator, he could potentially become notable in the future. However, he doesn't meet the criteria for notability at the moment. ^Wiinter_U 16:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WinterU:, he has never been a senator, he also isn't a member of the Provincial States anymore. Dajasj (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I misread it on accident. I hereby change my vote to Delete. ^Wiinter_U 17:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shuqin

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and while a scholar search does show several works which are well cited, they are not in this person's field of study, so are most likely a different individual. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taandob (2025 film)

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

Feels way too early for an article. If reports are accurate, the film is supposed to release in two months, but per the cited sources, filming just started less than a week ago. Right now, there's nothing substantial just the usual production updates, cast announcements, and filming news. No real depth. Wikipedia isn't meant to track every step of a film's production. An article makes sense when there's more to say something beyond just "this movie is happening." Either once most of the film is shot and there's sufficient independent coverage with real substance, or after release if it gets real critical attention. Until then, better to draftify. Junbeesh (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Junbeesh (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Unless principal photography starts and it gets enough coverage, move it and keep it in Draftspace. ^Wiinter_U 16:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Principal photography has started. -Mushy Yank. 17:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raihan_Rafi#Films: for now and expand back into an article when more coverage exists but filming has started, notable cast (see https://images.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/shooting-underway-taandob-producer-addresses-casting-rumours-3858741, for example) so, opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 17:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as there are less coverage about the subject. When the article can be expanded enough, we can move the draft in the main space. Mehedi Abedin 21:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Campaign

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

Article describes a 1775 clash between Sikh Misls but fails to show its a distinct, notable event beyond skirmishes already covered in articles like Kanhaiya Misl, Bhangi Misl, or Sikh Confederacy. "Pathankot Campaign" isn’t a recognized term in historical scholarship, also WP:RS don’t treat it as a standalone event separate from typical inter-Misl strife. It leans on a narrow set of sources, like Gandhi (1999) and Gupta (1939), lack the mainstream weight or specificity to confirm details. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Pakistan and Punjab. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sikhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "Pathankot Campaign" is itself made up. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yet another revenge nomination, [44][45][46] lol. Just take all of my articles for deletion. Not to mention the nominator has used AI to write this frivolous rationale. Like they don't even bother to go through Pathankot Campaign#References. Check these sources: (2 pages), (2 pages). Heraklios 16:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, this is kinda funny to me, few days back, some dude was all over me for grammar slip-ups, and now this! Anyway, seems like you’re pretty worked up and running low on solid points. I did my WP:BEFORE check before tossing this article up for deletion. Check it yourself: Google Books (nothing relevant), Google Scholar (nothing), normal search (nothing), News articles(empty too). Looks to me like its got zero notability in mainstream sources. NXcrypto Message 20:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never even crossed paths with you, so don’t go saying this is some revenge nomination, that's nonsense. NXcrypto Message 20:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re pointing to these Internet Archive links like they’re gold:[47] and [48], but let’s be real, its just Hari Ram Gupta again, and that’s a shaky leg to stand on. Gupta’s stuff, like from 1939/1944 or whenever, isn’t some mainstream heavyweight and doesn’t prove “Pathankot Campaign” is a legit standalone thing. I dug through WP:BEFORE, Google Books, Scholar, news, nothing calls this a distinct event. You wanna keep it? Show me something solid, some mainstream scholar references, not just Gupta’s dusty WP:RAJ work. NXcrypto Message 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamadoun Kassogué

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

Cannot find any in-depth information about this actor. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atelier VM

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

This looks more like a promotional write-up than a properly sourced article. None of the cited sources actually establish notability. The first reference is a Spotlight article, which is essentially a paid feature and not independent. The second doesn't really go into detail about the subject. The rest are either trivial mentions, SEO-driven, or just routine business updates. A thorough search brings up nothing substantial just the usual PR and business announcements. Junbeesh (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Junbeesh (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Atelier VM is an Italian jewelry brand founded in 1998 with continuous activity for over 25 years. It has received coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources, including:

The article has been improved with additional context and sources during the AfD discussion. The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:CORP for notability, with reliable third-party coverage and relevance in the contemporary fashion and design scene. --Kaffa23 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaffa23 Looking at the sources, the first reference is just a listicle or a curated roundup of fashion updates. Listicles are usually brief and surface-level, so they don't really contribute to notability. The second reference is a Spotlight article, which is essentially a paid feature, meaning it's not independent. The third is just a basic product launch announcement, and the fourth is another article covering the same launch. There's nothing here that establishes notability in a meaningful way. Junbeesh (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Schwartz

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

Lack of any notability whatsoever - prior print sources were bogus and unverifiable. Biased and POV statements littered throughout the article and the subject has flaunted said article on social media (facebook) many times. Large chunk of contributions to the article are from suspicious anonymous IP addresses that have only edited that page, as well as Guy Schwartz's own wikipedia account. Subject has not established notability and this page should be deleted. Brandonac4473 (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, Journalism, Television, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the article is unsourced, so that's of no help. I don't find anything for sourcing. Could be notable, but the lack of any kind of sourcing isn't helpful. Could be a hoax or an LLM article for all I know. Could likely speedy this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REDCLIFFE Partners

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: WP:Articles for deletion/Redcliffe Partners * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources cited: 6 are press releases published by the EBA, 2 are press releases published by the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, 2 are press releases on the company's own WWW site, 1 is a press release published by the USIDFC, 1 is a press release on the company's LinkedIn page, 1 is a listing page that is empty, 1 the Financial Times is behind a paywall, 1 is a law firm directory listing, 2 are press releases/autobiography by Clifford Chance, 3 are ranked directories of companies, 3 are shortlistings for awards (not actually winning them), 1 is an interview published by a marketing consultancy, 2 are dead links, 1 is a press release on gazeta.ua, 2 are ranking listings and an interview on yur-gazeta.com, 1 is a list of corporate sponsors of an event, 1 simply mentions that the firm handled a contract, 2 are page not founds, 3 are about law and business practice in Ukraine in general (2 not even mentioning this company, the other quoting its CEO), 1 is about a person who worked at the company applying for another position, 4 are CEE Legal Matters recycling press releases, 2 are CEE Legal Matters covering itself, 1 is CEE Legal Matters interviewing executives, 2 are CEO interviews by the Kyiv Post, 1 is a recycled press release by the Kyiv Post, 1 is a corporate puff piece in Comments.UA.
There is not a single reliable in-depth on-point independent source in the lot of them. This is egregious corporate puffery. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article was likely created in an attempt to evade the salting at Redcliffe Partners. This version should have been drafted and submitted it via WP:AFC, where a discussion on the article's merits could have properly occurred. Also importantly, the article fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG -- this is obvious from the above analysis of sources by Uncle G. - tucoxn\^talk 11:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did find Kyivpost, and partly Comments and Gazeta.ua have the decent coverage, but it's true that interviews and paid placements are not included here. I think more sources exist, given the vast activity of the law firm at home. Unicorbia (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mahler

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

I do think this article passes WP:N. Most of the sources that mention him are about Moon Studios, the studio he co-founded, or the development process of the Ori games, but they are not necessarily about him. OceanHok (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, OceanHok. I appreciate the scrutiny regarding WP:N. I believe Thomas Mahler meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that focus on him as an individual, not just Moon Studios or the Ori games. For example, the GamesIndustry.biz article "The making of Ori and the Blind Forest" (2015-03-23) provides detailed insight into Mahler’s personal background, his time at Blizzard, and his creative vision, beyond just the studio’s work. Similarly, the GamesRadar+ interview "Ori and the Will of the Wisps interview: Thomas Mahler on difficulty, storytelling, and more" (2020-03-10) centers on his design philosophy and leadership approach, highlighting his individual contributions. These sources, among others like the PC Gamer coverage of his role in No Rest for the Wicked’s development, offer substantial, non-trivial coverage of Mahler himself in secondary sources, independent of Moon Studios. While much of his recognition ties to the studio he co-founded, this is typical for creative directors, and the depth of personal focus in these articles supports his notability under WP:GNG. I’d welcome further discussion or suggestions to strengthen this! 84.242.10.82 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only time I've seen this guy in the news was when he was accused of creating a toxic workplace. No mention of that in the article here though, instead we have an overly long promo/fluff piece that reads like it was AI generated. Seriously, look at some of these sentences: "Thomas Mahler’s career has significantly impacted modern game development, from the way games can be made to the way they are received." "Mahler’s work on Ori has had a lasting influence beyond just sales and awards. The games demonstrated that a small, remote team could produce an experience to rival big-budget studio productions, potentially influencing how future indie projects are perceived and funded." Even if other editors think he's notable, I'm not sure there's anything worth salvaging in the current article. I'd argue it needs WP:TNT either way. CurlyWi (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IP editor above appears to be a WP:SPA who has previously attempted to sanitize any criticism[49][50] in the Moon Studios article. CurlyWi (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merge a small part to the Moon Studios article? I'm not sure he's quite notable enough, but there's more than ample coverage about the workplace "issues". Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A lot of this dovetails with Moon Studios. I don't really think he's notable outside that framework (otherwise it's notability decided solely on WP:NOTNEWS-ish controversy-related grounds.) I'm not seeing the significance for a GNG pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but also rewrite significantly. Per above, the main thing I know him from are the allegations of creating a toxic studio environment. The old 2017 article may be a better base to build from. That said, it does appear that there are sources and interviews here, so if trimmed down to DUEWEIGHT, there's something workable potentially. (Merge would be a backup second choice.) I'm not sure the original 2017 bold redirect was really merited. SnowFire (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still think all of Mahler's successes and failures are too closely tied to Moon Studios and its games. I redirected the article in 2017 for mostly being an unnecessary content fork at that time. OceanHok (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Snowfire says above "it does appear that there are sources and interviews here," but has anyone actually looked at them? Of the 23 sources cited in the current article, 18 of them don't exist. And I don't just mean the links are broken, I mean they cite articles that literally never existed as far as I can tell. I'm 99% sure this IP editor [51] just asked chatGPT to generate a positive article about Mahler which is why the article is full of insane sentences like "The Ori games revitalized interest in 2D exploration-platformers and set a high bar for artistry in games." I wouldn't be surprised if the IP is Mahler himself[52] since he appears to be involved here too. To quote Revenge of the Sith, "How did this happen? We're smarter than this!" I still stand by my original comment that there is nothing worth merging/salvaging in the current article, and this deserves TNT even if other editors think a good article on Mahler could potentially exist down the line. CurlyWi (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Conducted

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

No refs on the page since 2009. I'm not seeing much which would meet the notability criteria for inclusion but am interested if others can find RS to offer JMWt (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. JMWt (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla house

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

Does not appear to be an official prototype (vs Cybercab) or proposed product other than appearance at a couple random shows. Not significant coverage to support notability on its own. Could just be mention in Tesla Energy. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This prototype/concept has been shown in numerous Australia cities and at two LA Auto Show. Wikipedia has many pages of prototype/concept products. Wikipedia does not exclude prototypes, upcoming products if they are noteworthy. This is noteworthy prototype, not from some small un-noteworthy company.

If you deleted this page you need to remove other prototype/concept pages (go remove these first):

WikiHouse Not a product - go remove in first!
Xanadu Houses
Futuro
Edison Portland Cement house
Volvo VESC
Porsche 989
Pontiac Club de Mer
Pontiac Bonneville Special
Mercedes-Benz C111
Mazda Suitcase Car
Airbus CityAirbus
Big Mac (computer)
City of Everett (aircraft)
Fiat ESVs
Lanchester petrol-electric car
Pacerailer
Single-hole cassette
Xerox NoteTaker
Yehudi lights

and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telecineguy (talk • contribs)

Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a very convincing arguement. Need to show the merits of this particular subject and whether it meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing a clear GNG pass - the sources are all promotional or are about a different house. (I actually thought this was going to be an ill advised AfD about the house in Smiljan.) SportingFlyer T·C 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources listed in the article are promotional. The recently added source from "gatorrated" is an unreliable blog post with what appears to be an AI generated image that only exists on the blog. I am not seeing any developments on the tesla house since ~2018.

Agree with Zala that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument to keep. Many of the articles listed by telecineguy are well-sourced and establish the notability of their subjects with independent, non-promotional material (e.g. City of Everett (aircraft)) not to mention many led to actual products.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ WikiHouse is not a product, why are you not marking it "Delete"? This is not a AI generated image. It was shown at two LA auto shows and in many Australia cities.Telecine Guy (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so, I did a strikethrough on your duplicitous "Keep" since you already have that above. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not every product made by Tesla is notable, especially if it's just a prototype. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a fair bit of coverage of its tour of Australia when I search for "Tesla tiny house", eg this article in Architect Magazine [53]. Whether it's enough for an independent article, or whether it could be merged to Tesla, Inc. (where it currently isn't mentioned at all), I'm not sure. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's better to look for new sources as RebeccaGreen already did and the one from Architecmagazine is a decent one. I also found and added CNET https://www.cnet.com/home/electric-vehicles/tesla-tows-tiny-house-around-australia-with-model-x/, PCmag https://uk.pcmag.com/science-space/90704/tesla-is-touring-australia-with-a-tiny-house, Mashable https://mashable.com/article/tesla-tiny-house-solar-energy. Unicorbia (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources, and I don't want to spam with them here. Also, one should google "Tesla tiny house" instead of "Tesla house" Unicorbia (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion as to keep or not, but feel the info should be merged somewhere if not straight up kept. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are some calls to merge the article, but I don't think there's enough input to see a consensus for that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone been able to find articles that show notability? The brief time period where tesla showed off a prototype (summer/fall 2017) has quite a few in reliable sources, but most just say the tiny house was on tour and maybe give a brief description of the Tesla products included (Tesla solar Tesla battery Tesla model X Tesla electronics etc.). This just seems like tesla was promoting their available products, not truly developing a tiny home for production. There is not much in the way of continued coverage, and more recent articles tend to point back to events 2017.

Politifact covered recent social media posts claiming that Elon Musk was building a low cost house and stated there is not evidence and that the 2017 house was "only a model." Sticking with my earlier vote.

From what I've seen, I'd argue this was more of an event than a true prototype. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmal P. A.

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

Non-notable player who has only played for a sub-national league, which itself is likely to be non-notable. Claims to be professional but I've not been able to find sources that show this to be true. JMWt (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. JMWt (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both the article and the Super League Kerala one. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Back when this article was created, I-League was categorised under FPL, which unfortunately is no longer a criteria for creating articles. It is to note that Ajmal had made an appearance for GKFC once in the I-League. I'm voting keep just based on that. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 11:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone else's benefit, I think you were the originator of this article. JMWt (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to disagree with the "unfortunately is no longer a criteria" part, and write "fortunately" instead. Gargantuan failure of WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails in GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective

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

Nothing much on the page to suggest the notability criteria have been met and I'm not finding much else to consider. WP:NJOURNAL is an essay and a bit opaque but I'm not seeing anything there that this journal unambiguously fits for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add: the editor that worked on this page also worked on a number of other journals from the same publisher. Which seems a bit suspicious (of COI editing) given they didn't seem to do anything else in their editing history. JMWt (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal is indexed and fairly well-ranked in SCOPUS. Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Nobody (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Dura Bin

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

Reason Alexthegod5 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Non notable individual who's only source of significance is that her husband named a city after her in Florida, which is already summarized in his article (Andrew Turnbull (colonist)). Alexthegod5 (talk)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Turkey. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, South Carolina, Greece, and History. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for sources, I find indications that there may be more to her. This source [54] says that she and her husband were two of the earliest members of the South Carolina Medical Society. This source [55] says (in a snippet view) "Maria Gracia Turnbull came over in the Colonial period with her husband ...[she] was a courageous, aristocratic lady, and a true partner of her husband. Not only did she play an important ..." (cut off by the snippet).

I don't know why the misspelled name is used for the article title - 18th and early 19th century sources refer to her as (Mrs) Gracia Turnbull or Maria Gracia Turnbull.

I'll try to work out how to add this to other deletion sorting lists (Greece, Florida, South Carolina) in the hope that editors who work in those areas may have access to more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Thank you for your assistance - I tried looking up the South Carolina Medical Society and found the Medical Society of South Carolina, which was founded around the same time (1789), although neither that website nor the organization's history page mention either her nor her husband. Maybe that's a good place to start looking for some other sources that mention her? Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Here's something I just found that might be a good place too, if you or someone else is able to get a copy https://www.amazon.com/MEDICAL-SOCIETY-SOUTH-CAROLINA-Hundred/dp/B000GS75JK Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – I don't see much notoriety. 190.219.102.197 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsora

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable sources. Most of the sources that have been used here are mostly unreliable, while other reliable was just he won 2019 but that's it. I'm suspecting Nairo (gamer) has the same fate like this article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might be reliable like ESPN, but it has only trivia coverage; thus not a sigcov (wouldn't help its notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find links to Events Hub, which feels promotional. The sourcing used is mostly confirmation lists of people involved in various tournaments. I don't see notability with the lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico's Next Top Model season 3

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

Redirect, unnecessary. Valorrr (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Valorrr (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator actually blanked and redirected this article, but *then* sent it to AfD. Since redirects cannot be nominated at AfD, I have restored the article for now. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: I think a redirect would be more appropriate, there's been significant contribution on all five pages that were initially recommended for a merge with the main article, out of respect to the work that has been put in by other users.50.252.99.6 (talk) 18:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War

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

There is no conflict such as the "Ahluwalia–Ramgarhia War", sources do not support it and provide no significant coverage to a conflict under this name. This article is a part of a series of fringe pseudohistorical articles created for ethno-religious POV pushing. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax article, if ends up on a section on Wikipedia's finest list of hoax articles I wouldn't be surprised. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sources are quite clear in establishing the notability of this conflict, the nominator is currently on his spree of nominating my articles for deletion just to take revenge for this SPI:
- [56]: 3 pages of coverage.
- [57]: Another 3 pages of coverage.
- [58]: Same. Heraklios 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can read only snippets of one source that I looked for, but at the very least the people purported to be involved in this conflict existed, and skirmishes are referred to. Unlikely to be a complete hoax from what I can see Recon rabbit 19:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tharizdun

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional deity from D&D. Reception is limited to two listicles or such. WP:GNG fail. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest merging reception to the List of Dungeons & Dragons deities and redirecting this there (our article is just a list of appearances in D&D media and fancrufty description of in-universe history etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 6, 7, and 27 provide significant IRS or acceptable SPS coverage of the topic. Reception isn't mandatory, and even if it was, non-RS'es would be sufficient for that. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Inasmuch as reception is objective the reporting of a non-WP:Reliable source is not reliable, and inasmuch as it is subjective the opinion of a non-WP:Reliable source is not WP:DUE. TompaDompa (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of things named after Sheikh Mujibur Rahman

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

This list is currently not suitable due to the lack of notable things named after him. Due to recent political changes, the names of notable establishments have been changed. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 04:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 04:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles on things named after people like Trump and Obama are obviously notable because they are some of the most famous people in the world, but I don't think so with Bangladesh's founding father! Just ask a random person on the street if they know who Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is and they'll probably say no. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for providing no valid deletion reasons. A lack of notable things? Multiple entries have their own articles (I've added more). Whether or not some of them have been renamed is irrelevant. Also, An editor from Mars's argument that Rahman is not as famous as Obama or infamous as Trump is very Western-centric, contrary to Wikipedia's principles. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. Just ask a random person if they know who Sheikh Mujibur Rahman is. In Bangladesh or India, the answer would be yes. What a silly rationale for deletion. Renaming things does not erase history.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’m afraid this nomination doesn’t make any sense to me. Mccapra (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. The whole Indian Subcontinent atleast knows his name. Also the argument of nominator "Due to recent political changes, the names of notable establishments have been change", just use the term " formerly known" in the article. Imwin567 (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.32 Remington

AfDs for this article:

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

Horse Eye's Back objected to removal of the notability tag after the last deletion discussion, so I did some research into sources that mention the .32 Remington; see Talk:.32 Remington#Notability. Horse Eye's Back concluded that this article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. -- Beland (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone can identify more coverage we just dont have WP:GNG and I don't believe that it meets any SNG either. Happy to reconsider if signficant independent coverage is identified, if you think you have please ping me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even one of the sources used for the article (Stebbins) says it's not a well-known cartridge. Jack O'Connor's book gives it a brief sentence as "part of the 30-30 family" and leaves it at that. Intothat darkness 19:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoneblower

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

This is in some sense a thing, but as far as I can tell it's not a class of things; it's a particular type of railroad ballast groomer which works using a different mechanism that more usual ballast tampers. And there really only appears to be one model of this. On top of that the tone is largely promotional, and that reflects the sources I have been able to find, which appear to all be press releases about its introduction. The "this will revolutionize the industry " slant to the text is rather undercut by there apparently being only three of these in existence, all working on one railroad. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - The article does seem to be overweighted with information about an early model that didn't work out. I've added a bit of content about a more recent model. Yes, there are a lot of press releases, but by selecting my search terms carefully I was able to avoid these and find some other sources. Using Google Books I also found several books in which the stoneblower technology is being discussed; although most of these are "snippet" views, they do seem to be weighing the technical pros and cons rather than making company announcements. If you think more sources are needed, I can try to wade through them. One of them says " Stoneblower represented a considerable advance on existing track maintenance vehicles and several companies submitted low tenders in an attempt to get hold of the technology". —Anne Delong (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've perused my copy of Railway Maintenance by Brian Solomon and cannot find any mention of a stoneblower. That book's scope is primarily North America, however, and the stoneblower seems to be primarily used in the U.K. Most of our articles on railway maintenance equipment are not very well written (early on in my career here I did work on Ballast regulator and Spike driver and created Tie exchanger, among others, but they're not up to the standards of my current writing). From reading pages 20-21 of the cited Non-Destructive Evaluation of Railway Trackbed Ballast I see references to several other works that purportedly cover stoneblowers. Looking online I found an article in an industry publication along with a research paper, the latter added to the article by Anne Delong already. I'm leaning keep but in the worst case this should be merged with Tamping machine. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ispmanager

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—there isn't enough similarity with the page deleted in 2011 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISPmanager (2nd nomination) for G4 to apply—but the same arguments still apply; I'm not seeing anything to indicate any particular significance. Web server software is most definitely not my area, so I'm perfectly willing to be convinced that this is in fact notable, but as it stands I'm seeing nothing to indicate that anything has changed in the last 14 years. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 17:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the article! I understand your concerns regarding the lack of perceived significance or changes over the past 14 years. However, I'd like to stress that the subject in question—one of the popular web hosting control panels—has seen significant global expansion in recent years, particularly within the last two years. This growth alone suggests an ongoing relevance and importance within its industry.

The company just recently participated in CloudFest in March 2025 https://www.ispmanager.com/news/ispmanager-is-a-partner-and-participant-of-cloudfest-2025 and partnered with one of the biggest hosting provider in Turkey in January 2025 https://sh.com.tr/isp-manager-lisans

Additionally, a lack of familiarity with web server software is mentioned in the text of the deletion request, so it's important to note that many experts and users within the community recognize its value and impact. The article aims to reflect these developments and provide a comprehensive overview of the subject's role and influence.

If you have any specific feedback on any particular parts of the article that should be updated or corrected to make it more significant in your opinion, let me know. Once again, we aim to provide the most comprehensive overview of the subject and willing to specify any misunderstanding or clarify all the things as long as they are concrete and specific.

Thanks! Flantru (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like LLM generated nonsense and none of it is relevant to Wikipedia's definition of notability. My "concrete and specific" advice is to find and cite independent, reliable sources about the subject. Toadspike [Talk] 17:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: ispmanager is reasonably notable in the field, though it's definitely among the "fringe" software that you hear exists but never try. I personally support deletion based on the lack of sources beyond listicles or primaries, but 1 or 2 reliable sources establishing actual notability beyond my personal feelings about it would be enough for me to change vote to keep. I did not find such sources, maybe someone else can. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 10:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per top-5 independent rating. The weak comes from a lack of truly usable sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given previous discussion, soft deletion not possible, but discussion leaning in that direction. Without more analysis demonstrating reliable sourcing, an assertion of popularity is hard to give much weight to. Further discussion on sourcing (or its absence) would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most sources are primary and the ones that aren't don't indicate notability. It reads like it was either LLM or promotional content. It doesn't seem like there's enough coverage to keep. ^Wiinter_U 04:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Half of the refs are self-published by their own company. (refs #1, #3, #4, #6–11, #13) and some WP:RS concerns for ref #15 on the article. Ref #6 does not explicitly cite the sentence either. Primary sources is also an issue because nine references are from Ispmanager or affiliates from theirs. Editz2341231 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Northampton, MA

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

Non-notable album without significant coverage, previously draftified, also extensively BLARed at the redirect with history now located at Special:History/Live In Northampton, MA, so we might as well get a final decision on this. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found only one critic's review, from AllMusic. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how this album is any less notable than most of the the other 20-odd releases from the King Crimson Collector's Club which have articles on Wikipedia; are they all to be deleted too? Sure, these things don't sell enough to get in the charts, but they are important documents of a highly influential band - King Crimson - which is now no more. If anything, I would argue that the Projekcts releases such as this one are MORE notable than many King Crimson live releases, due to their very rarity; only a handful were ever released. Robert Fripp, now nearly 80 years old, has regularly been voted one of the best guitarists on the planet and I believe that future generations will be thankful that we have documented all of his work here. There will be no more KCCC releases, and in a decade or so it is likely that Fripp's website will disappear too, leaving future music lovers looking to us for information on a remarkable talent (and I say that as an ex-pro musician myself.) In comparison, consider Frank Zappa, a musician of the same generation held in similarly high esteem by a broadly similar audience. Since his death there have been over 60 archive releases from his estate, each one no doubt selling only a few thousand copies to a dedicated fan-base, just as Live in Northampton, MA has done. Every one of them has an article on Wikipedia. Nectar3 (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Nectar 3's arguments. Orlando Davis (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while Nectar3 had provided nice WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT arguments, there is still no indication that this meets WP:NALBUM or the WP:GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning towards delete given the indication of only a single source, if there are not multiple reliable sources is redirect an option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:16, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a suitable ATD, ProjeKcts#ProjeKct Two is the present location where the album is listed and the former target of the redorect. Bobby Cohn (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gļebs Basins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. No significant coverage found. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Latvia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Mentioned in passing in some articles but no sigcov outside of non-independent and opinion sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Media is mostly passing mentions or primary sources. XwycP3 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to dispute the claims by the nominator. There definitely exists SIGCOV, but I think it's less clear whether this should kept. I see coverage starting around 2016-2017, such as these video segments: [59][60]. CBC in 2019 reported that NFLK "represents dozens of families across Canada who have been affected by the list and pushing for change", even after the House passed Bill C-59; also in 2019 there were articles from The Globe and Mail [61] and Huffington Post [62], and a CityNews video segment [63]. In 2020 CTV News reported that members of the group were "invited to test federal remedy" to the issue; that was also covered by Global News [64]. This was a cursory search but I think there's a case to be made because of the continued advocacy by the group prior to the federal government's action in 2020. Bridget (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Before I can close, I need to ask User:Bridget, are you arguing for a Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Yes, thank you for checking. I'll change to a keep. I'm concerned that all the other comments are simply asserting that it's "not notable" or "doesn't pass WP:NORG" without much elaboration. Bridget (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads somewhat like promotional content and isn't written well. It also doesn't pass WP:NORG. ^Wiinter_U 04:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. That page title sounds like something a really bored vandal would create. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bridget. Appears to have SIGCOV and deletion is not cleanup. मल्ल (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryMasters

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

IndustryMasters the company(?) and IndustryMasters the game (formerly IndustryPlayer) fail WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources online.

There are five sources cited but actually eight in total; three are pasted in the middle of the article as external links. Citation 1 is a permanently dead link. Citations 2 to 4 verify that the IndustryMasters website was used to host one event (one game) of a competition in India from 2006 to 2010. Citation 5 does not mention, but is being used to verify the existence of, the event and competition. The first external link is a YouTube video announcing that IndustryMasters won a Learning Technologies Award, a private initiative. The second external link is a WBS source that briefly mentions IndustryMasters twice in the context of the WBS working with them. The Warwick Business School source is an announcement of its partnership with IndustryMasters.

The sourced content does not indicate anything particularly remarkable about the IndustryMasters company(?) and the rest of the article, including information about its gameplay and utility, is wholly unsourced. Its biggest claim to fame is winning an award in 2020 in its niche subset of educational games.

This article was recreated by Sunshinebr after its preceding article IndustryPlayer was deleted on 6 June 2008. Sunshinebr justified the recreation by saying they added sources, but evidently the sources are not in-depth or independent of the company and nobody had bothered scrutinising them until now. All of this article's content was written by Sunshinebr (other users' edits being general cleanup) and nearly all of Sunshinebr's edits are limited to this article.

Seems to me that an article for a non-notable game and later company was recreated and managed to pass unnoticed for several years. Yet through all that time, not one reliable, independent source covered either the game or company in detail, hence a failure of WP:ORG. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the contributor sunshinebr. some inaccuracies in Yue's commentary _ IndustryMasters is a registered trademark for a proprietary and unique business simulation platform with hundreds of simulation variants, used by major corporations and business schools across the world. To call it non-notable is a distortion. - The activity in India was not 1 game but many editions and variations, and several top business schools. - The Learning Technology awards are a prestigious annual industry event in the UK. Not exactly a "private initiative" as Yue has stated. It may not be US-based, but is important in our industry, recognizing exceptional standards and performance as well as extremely close collaboration with a major academic institution. - I have removed reference 1 (the dead link) from the CPA of Australia as it seems to be out of print now. at the time of original publishing it was a valid reference. - The IndustryMasters platform continues to develop and publish in 2025 and will shortly announce major technological advances in business simulation programming. I would hope that Wikipedia would advance into the 21st century with its thinking, and provide a useful reference to the world across academia and industry.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinebr (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is established by citing independent reliable sources providing enough detail on the topic, not just stating about its subjective importance or awards; this is especially true for articles about companies. ObserveOwl (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing notability here against WP:NCORP. The sourcing present in the article fails to support significant coverage that would detail key information to describe the business and its products. The article is littered with promotional jargon that is generally not encyclopedic at all. The sources indicate some recognition in the field, but these are scattered amongst products or business practices that fail to provide context to the business or really evidence anything about its core notability. If the business is notable within or outside its industry, broader sourcing about the business would be expected. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Delete I cannot see it's notability either. Business descriptions, paid and self-published sources only. Maybe some sources exist. --Unicorbia (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here so Soft Deletion is not an option. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Isla Bell

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Sources are all thing happened with little commentary, making them WP:PRIMARYNEWS PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable, very little coverage, Wikipedia:Lasting, and several other reasons previously listed. ^Wiinter_U 01:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I do not know what the moderators, other editors would like. Australia is different to the US/UK - we do not have talk shows that discuss events. We have the news bulletins on television/radio and the newspapers. This is an on-going case and the comments section of any article about this (when opened) shows how outraged Australians are over this.

A young woman was taken, murdered, then her body dumped - Wikipedia has articles about a lot less. The trial, details of this are still yet to come; anticipating it to be a big trial with lots of information/evidence etc to be released (because we are in pre-trial stage so not everything is released - that would destroy the prosecutors case) someone took the initiative to start a page and start compiling the information and what because the Made for TV Movie isn't already being developed it's not enough for editors to warrant a page.

For the record there are other things happening in Australia as well; the Brisbane Olympic Games finally announced what they are doing, we had the Federal Budget handed down, we have an impending Election which is all taking up news time but because this isn't top story every night "WELP The world doesn't need to know about another woman killed by a man"? It's already a growing pandemic and you want to be part of hiding the numbers and sweeping stories about it under the rug?

Let's not forget the precedent you are setting here now... any crime that happens in the world NOTHING is allowed to be posted here until the court case is finalised and ALL evidence is available. NOTED! Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— Thepeoplesdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please read it WP:NEVENT. This wouldn't be notable if it had happened in America either. There are a lot of murders. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I found are from November 2024. No lasting impact or coverage. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an on-going case with numerous court cases to play out. There were articles posted today and there is outrage in Australia about this. Did you bother to attempt to search before deciding a case you have never heard of isn't worthy? Why because it's Australian? Do we have to tear buildings down or ensure it is the only thing anyone in the country can think about for it to be worthy of a wikipedia article.

Thought this of all places would be one you would need to fact check or resource check... guess not! Just list things for deletion we don't like... wait here I'll go get a list of pages I don't like and we can list them for deletion too. Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EVENT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LASTING. I suggest you get more experience editing other articles and contributing to other AfDs to understand how deletion works. Not everything reported in the media gets an article. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the reasons for nomination. Several articles discussed the event in the context of demonstrations opposing violence against women. It's more than just thing happened. I was able to find coverage in both Australian and UK sources, some of it from October 2024 and now March 2025. The multi-country scope and significant national coverage in Australia suggests notability to me as this is not an event just isolated to local news. I have added updates to the article with additional sources. A quick google news search turns up articles from October 2024 and March 2025, and please do due diligence commenting in favor of keep or delete. Coverage will likely continue as the full trial begins and I don't think the duration of coverage will be an issue long-term.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is borderline for me. Hassett (2024) looks like it gives coverage of the event as a notable example as opposed to news coverage. Roulston (2024) might indicate this as well, but it's a stretch. If there's a slightly more clear cut example of using this as a WP:CASESTUDY or becoming a go-to example in the literature, then it would be a definite keep. I'm not interested in coverage that might exist some day in the future (that's a fancy way of saying it doesn't exist), or continued breaking news coverage as it comes out. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is still being used as an example of violence against women in Australia during coverage of anti-violence rallies in a newspaper of record: [65]. Uncertain if that will nudge minds in one way or another (I've added the reference to the article). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. The claim that all coverage in the sources is from November 2024 is false as a review of the article clearly shows. But please, no conspiracy theories, these type of crime articles regularly appear in AFD discussions and is not influenced by the location of the crime, the outcome is determined the coverage of the incident by reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's an ongoing criminal court case. I'm not Australian but I suspect that there are similar regular reporting restrictions on legacy media during active criminal litigation as in the UK. Nothing we do here should impede the operation of a fair trial IMO, and there's no overwhelming reason why we need to write this story until all the court time is completed. JMWt (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a reason to delete articles on wikipedia? Unless the information in the article is original research, all of the information is from third parties. Wikipedia isn't censored WP:UNCENSORED, and I'm not sure how this article would impede a fair trial. Is the argument here to delete any article as soon as there are related court cases? Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antahpragnya

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

Flagged as AI-generated by Editor113u47132, unclear notability. -- Beland (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and India. Beland (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sole source is a BusinessWire press release. Other sources that I turn up are the same or other press releases, republished elsewhere, and RGUKT's own publications. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran the article through ZeroGPT and it returned a result of 80.67% human-written. While it definitely needs cleanup and still has to demonstrate notability, I don’t think there’s sufficient reason to label it as AI-generated. I’ve gone ahead and removed the AI-generated tag. HerBauhaus (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now includes broad, independently sourced coverage of the 2020 Antahpragnya event from The Hindu and The New Indian Express (both WP:RS), along with regional coverage from The Hans India (WP:V). This satisfies WP:GNG for Antahpragnya 2020. Given that coverage is currently limited to this single event, narrowing the scope to "Antahpragnya 2020" would be more appropriate. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per new sources above which should suffice for RS, V. I briefly copy-edited the lead which ought to improve its standing. ‒overthrows 19:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[g169-1] Bajpai, Shashank Shekhar (4 March 2025). "रायपुर महापौर मीनल चौबे ने संभाली कुर्सी, शहर के चहुंमुखी विकास का किया वादा". Nai Dunia (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[q418-2] Marut raj (28 March 2025). "रायपुर में 4 नए फ्लाई ओवर और कामकाजी महिलाओं के लिए 3 हॉस्टल बनेंगे". Sootr (in Hindi). Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[y307-3] "RMC's 1.5k crore budget prioritises urban devpt". The Times of India. 29 March 2025. Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[q637-4] Hitavada, The (6 February 2025). "BJP's Minal Choubey pledges to prioritise basic amenities". The Hitavada. Retrieved 1 April 2025.

[m618-5] "Raipur: जानें कौन हैं मीनल चौबे, जिसे बीजेपी ने रायपुर नगर निगम से मेयर प्रत्याशी के लिये चुनावी रण में उतारा". Amar Ujala (in Hindi). 27 January 2025. Retrieved 2 April 2025.

[r405-6] Mallick, Avdhesh (28 March 2025). "Raipur Mayor Meenal Chaubey Presents ₹1529.53 Crore RMC Budget, Focus On Women Empowerment & Infrastructure". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 2 April 2025.

[o828-7] Behera, Partha Sarathi (1 March 2025). "Develop public facilities based on citizen input: Raipur mayor Meenal Chaubey". The Times of India. Retrieved 2 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]