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 29	May 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Rail transport periodical

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

Unsourced article which admits it is a "tabulation for periodicals which do not have their own articles" - a blatant end-run round WP:GNG and a useless inclusion criteria. It is full of personal opinions and original research. While at least some of these periodicals do exist, there is no way for a reader to tell if they all do. Opolito (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into List of rail transport–related periodicals. Expanding the latter into (well-cited) tables with ISSN, publisher, and start/end dates would be valuable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we supposed to improve this article before creating the list? I think that list should be merged into this article instead. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domdaniel

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

No significant coverage for this fictional place. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE is hard here, because domdaniel is also a word meaning "a den of inquiry",[1]. There's also a WP:NOTDIC issue here where the article just extracts WP:OR of various times the word has been used. It seems to have been coined in One Thousand and One Nights, so there could be a valid WP:ATD as a search term. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palisade Rail Bridge

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable bridge. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Minnesota. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River. Per Wikipedia:NBUILD, if an infrastructure piece is of unclear notability it should redirect to a broader article or list. Merging not needed because it's a list that already contains this bridge. Definitely shouldn't be a standalone article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of page, now agree with the reasoning for deleting this article, should be kept in List of crossings of the Upper Mississippi River. OakGust00 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet :seems like an interesting historic bridge, though better sources would be need to be found, as the writers of below likely did:

Djflem (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Syrian coup d'état attempt

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

To copy and paste what I wrote on the article's talk page:

"I believe that this article should be deleted because, per WP:V, this article's topic lacks enough coverage from reliable sources:

The events described in the article itself only come from one source, and only one other source is used in the article which supports the claim that a coup happened on 30 November
- FactNews-UA is referring to HTS taking Maarat al-Numan
- North Press Agency specificlly says "unconfirmed reports of a military coup in Damascus".
- Even Turkiyetoday (the other source I mentioned) addresses the subject in a more speculative than objective tone
I didn't originally know when first typing this, but there already were discussions on Wikipedia on the article from The Jewish Press: [2] and [3]
- The users in the first link concluded that the validity of The Jewish Press's article (which is almost solely the source of information in this article) is dubious because no other source reported on it (such as SOHR, Anadolu Agency, Al Jazeera English, or Al-Monitor)
- The users in the second link concluded that the specific article likely was an example of WP:WSAW, though they said that The Jewish Press shouldn't be classified as WP:GUNREL

Thus, the subject of this Wikipedia article (a coup attempt by Hossam Louka in Syria on 30 November) doesn't appear to be reported by sufficient reliable and verifiable sources, making this article violate WP:V." Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition Honestly, it should stay because I can understand that the creators of the sources have lied, but it doesn't mean that there is no evidence (videos, images) that prove otherwise. They are the sources. I'm going to try to find more sources, but they exist and they are real. Farcazo (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I want to clarify what I think the sources and the article are trying to say. Basically one part of Assad's military may or may not have tried to take control of the government in order to more strongly fight against the rebels but another part of Assad's military stopped them? Separately I am not convinced this is a notable enough part of the general fighting going on at the time for it to get its own article. Moritoriko (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeeka Guruge

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

Fails the requirements of WP:ANYBIO / WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks significant coverage of the individual in multiple reliable sources. Apart from the Sunday Observer article, the others are just mentions in passing. It has also been extensively edited by, what appears to be, the individual the subject of the article - WP:SELFPROMOTION. Has been tagged as not meeting WP:GNG, since February 2016, without any substantive improvements to the referencing/sourcing. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the concerns about the possible autobiographical edits, 11 of the 16 sources appear to be dead links and bring up a 404 error when trying to access them. Based on the titles, these sources may follow a similar pattern described later. Most of the remaining ones are either plot summaries of a movie that lists the subject in the cast (source 8 for example) or articles discussing a movie and listing the subject as a music director (with no further mention or coverage of the subject), such as in sources 9 and 10. The first links that appear when doing a search of the subject include profiles on Facebook and YouTube, his official site, and a few other similar articles similarly providing a passing mention but not significant coverage of him (such as him performing at an event). ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 07:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has since been updated with 36 reliable sources, most of which are now accessible and provide substantial coverage beyond passing mentions. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even after rewrite. The sources provided are mostly IMDB. While there are newspapers, they appear to be excessively promotional and making outlandish statements. For these reasons I do not believe WP:GNG is met. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 13:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been revised with a stronger set of 36 sources, focusing on reliable newspaper coverage with less emphasis on IMDb or promotional tone. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has won notable awards and these sources here and here are significant coverage in reliable sources in my opinion Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First source looks ok (i believe this is the source mentioned in nom) but second source is a thinly disguised press release that is not significant coverage of the subject. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 05:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The updated article now includes 36 references, many of which provide substantial coverage of the subject from reliable, independent sources. I believe this demonstrates notability more clearly. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe any of the sources in the article demonstrate all 3 of significance, independence, or reliability. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 16:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback.
You mentioned that none of the sources in the article demonstrate all three criteria: significance, independence, and reliability. Could you please clarify which sources you reviewed and how they fall short in each of those specific areas? Without a detailed explanation, it’s difficult to understand the basis of your conclusion or to address any shortcomings effectively.

Additionally, I would like to point out that the subject is referenced in over 140 existing Wikipedia articles, which indicates a degree of established notability. You can verify this using the following search link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=Nadeeka+Guruge

A more specific breakdown of your concerns would be greatly appreciated so that we can improve the article accordingly.

Maduka Jayalath (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 18:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized this, but some of Maduka Jayalath’s comments above appear to be AI-generated starting from the "Thank you for your feedback" one, as those comments and the one below this one from them scored 100% on GPTZero. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 12:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been thoroughly updated with a broader range of reliable sources, including citations from established Wikipedia articles and recognized newspapers. These additions aim to enhance the article’s credibility and depth. A fresh review would be appreciated. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nadeeka Guruge is an award winning artists in Sri Lanka with rare human qualities. I don't think it is fare for non Sri Lanka born or non Sri Lankan resident to propose deletion of this Article without even knowing our language + without knowing the contribution done to Sri Lankan Music by maestro Nadeeka Guruge.

You may read articles at ^[1] to know more about him and his works. Additionally please check ^[2] (SLTC Registration ^[3]look for SLT Campus) to know his contribution towards music education in Sri Lanka.

I strongly disagree about Non Sri Lankan users requesting to delete a humble and non commercialized artists profiles without even doing a proper research. I hope MODS will take necessary actions to prevent this kind of things again. Thank You.

Damith Rushika Kothalawala (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and what are the "rare human qualities"? I'm sure he is probably notable on Tamil Wikipedia but not here. GarethBaloney (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Oh good lord a vote from an account whose last real edit was in 2016. Go read WP:CANVASS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can someone please give a detailed review of the Sinhalese references as I can't get Google Translate to work with them, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Atlantic306,

If you're using the Google Chrome browser, it works perfectly for me without any issues.

Just right-click anywhere on the page and select "Translate to English"

Please see the screenshots for reference.

Note: If you see an error message like “Could not translate this page” try refreshing the page and trying again.

Let me know if it still doesn't work on your end, happy to help further! Maduka Jayalath (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted English translations of Sinhala-language sources on Talk:Nadeeka Guruge#English Translations of Sinhala References. Please review the translations or suggest priority claims for verification. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be a collection of articles largely based on interviews or just passing mentions. I don't see anything in these sources to indicate notability per Wikipedia guidelines. --John B123 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123 please note that these translations cover only the non-English references, 15 in total while the subject article, Nadeeka Guruge, includes over 40 references in total. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removing the COI notice in response to the original proposer, as discussed at Talk:Nadeeka Guruge#COI. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maduka Jayalath: It's the quality of sources that count towards notability not the quantity. Please indicate what you consider the 3 best sources that meet the WP:GNG requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --John B123 (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three sources that offer significant, independent coverage of the subject, excluding interviews and passing mentions

1. Reference #4

2. Reference #3

3. Reference #2

Apart from WP:GNG, a search for the subject on Wikipedia reveals over 40 mentions across other articles, which highlights the subject’s relevance and further supports the case for the article’s existence. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No immediate comment on 1 and 2 in your list, but I am calling WP:NEWSORGINDIA on the fawning coverage of number 3 (which you call, Reference #2. That is, [4]). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the author of the mentioned article (Reference #2), Sunil Thenabadu, he is described as a recognized freelance journalist in the Sunday Times (1 October 2023, link). He has also published work in the Daily News (link), a well-established and reliable newspaper in Sri Lanka, along with other reliable newspapers, as can be confirmed with a quick online search. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As www.elanka.com.au states eLanka’s main mission is to bring the Global Sri Lankan community together to spread Good News Stories about all Sri Lankans in Australia & Globally and assist the community via a digital (Internet) platform to help market their products and services, I'm not sure it qualifies as a reliable source. --John B123 (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, Let’s evaluate the quality of the other two references. Do they meet WP:GNG by providing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources? Maduka Jayalath (talk) 01:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been reference-bombed with sources of varying quality. Please specify the three sources that establish either musical notability or general notability . Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. This source is cited as Reference #4 in the article.

2. This source is cited as Reference #3 in the article.

3. This source is cited as Reference #2 in the article.

Maduka Jayalath (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is established by meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO based on several awards the subject has won.Darkm777 (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From anybio:

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

And musicbio:

Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Note that regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. It is extremely common for aspiring musicians who want a Wikipedia article for the publicity to make inflated or false notability claims, such as charting hits that did not really chart (or which charted only on a non-notable WP:BADCHART) or nominations for awards that are not prominent enough to pass criterion number 8 (below). Thus, notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources.

Whether those criteria are being met is exactly what we are discussing right now. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the awards have sources and can be verified. He also meets WP:ENT "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Some citations are provided for his appearances as a judge in a TV show + he has dozens of film credits and theater credits. Darkm777 (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's still not an apparent consensus here, assertions that a person is notable by their appearances or awards is different than reliable sourcing with SIGCOV that establishes notability or assessments of the awards (many awards are not notable). It would be useful to have a full assessment of the three sources nominated, only one has actually had any assessment at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (weak) I read through the (automated) translations posted on the talk page and none of them satisfied the triple prong requirements of independent, significant, and reliable sourcing, the first being the one that keeps failing. I want to keep this article, I really do, which I why I spent so much time reading through everything but I don't think GNG is going to be the way to do it. As far as the awards that he has won, I am not confident that any of the awards automatically grant notability. As far as ENT goes, I think it is more likely he could qualify that way but I don't see him passing any of those criteria (definitely doesn't pass 1). If the awards that he has won are enough for AnyBio then it is enough for Ent, but I am not convinced by what I have seen. Moritoriko (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billion Dollar Spy (film)

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

Upcoming film that has not commenced any photography and does not have significant coverage from its announcement. Per WP:NFF Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, therefore this fails WP:NFILM. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 21:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Looks like the production announcement was given a few hours before my nom, meets WP:NFILM now. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and a clear one. It does appear to have some meaningful coverage from the Hollywood trades (see 1, 2). This article says that "principal photography has begun." And this article says that production has gotten underway in Budapest - "cameras roll", goes the headline. That seems like more than enough to me. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: It has in fact begun principal photography reason for nom is invalid. Moritoriko (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May I remove this from the AfD? Or should I wait?SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 05:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Geschichte (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Geschichte said, wait. Trust the process and other editors, and be patient. AFD discussions are closed after a week at most, generally. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay SomeAnotherCastaway (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir Qureshi

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

This person lacks any sort of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also am not finding any independent sources for notability, I will say that there appear to be several other Shakir Qureshi's in the news for some not very nice things but I am not seeing anything about this guy. (opinion is open to change if sources are presented). Moritoriko (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had CSD'ed the article, but the rationale wasn't right. There's no GNG met with any SIGCOV. Likely a promotional page mady by the subject themselves. — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Internet, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non notable. Promotional content. Seems like WP:COI and WP:PAID.

Afstromen (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional page with two sources that are unreliable, Twitter and Instagram. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be promotional and not notable at all. There are no RSes to support it and it looks like something you would find on his website bolstering himself. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ngazetungue Muheue

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

This person seems interesting, but I can't find any reliable sources discussing him in detail. There is a python post nominating him as dev of the week, but all I can find other than that, stuff he authored, and quotes is an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIAS1_L9UI&list=PLOrwX3hurKypv9eN3gv7eQ8wIsOhSwI0T&index=3). I think he does not meet the general notability guideline, so I'm nominating him. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I haven't searched in anything other than English (due to inability), so I might be missing something. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing doesn't support notability. It's mostly primary sources about the Python conference in Namibia, and a rewritten press release. I did a WP:BEFORE, and couldn't find anything else. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Djsky

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

This article does not indicate how the subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. I'm unable to find significant coverage of him in reliable sources, either English or Arabic. ... discospinster _talk 21:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lebanon. ... discospinster _talk 21:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy (musician)

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

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

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

Weak keep: There are bunch of independent sources on her with SIGCOV, but not all of them may be reliable. This, this, and this for SIGCOV. And these ones for individual claims: [5] and [6]. Only searched Google news. LastJabberwocky (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep while this article has enough sources to meet WP:BASIC, it's in desparate need of a re-write to remove promotional language and non-cited/non-verifiable content. Nnev66 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this subject does not seem notable on her own, but maybe as part of Antigone Rising as an AtD. like so. I can't see any reliably sourced information here, but if there is it can be merged. Jdcooper (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV in this article: The Seattle Times (2005) and New Jersey Herald (2017). There are other RS's that have only a paragraph or few sentences that I believe also contribute to notability. I acknowledge it's a close call but there is reliably sourced information in the article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seattle Times article is about Antigone Rising again, and the NJ Herald is a fluffy interview piece about a local musician which includes the text: "Arguably, Cassidy's biggest moment of fame so far came in the early- to mid-2000s when she was doing 250 shows a year with Antigone Rising." I still don't see any sigcov, or indeed notability, outside the band. Jdcooper (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that this person has had "no apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising," and there is a reliably-sourced information here. Specific concerns should be listed and the opportunity for added citations and/or editing should be allowed. Whiplashmash (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Ahlquist

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

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Minnesota. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is going to pass WP:Author. There's also some extensive (negative) writing about him[7] Jahaza (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on that article - I'm not sure why that didn't pop up in my Google News search. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried my hand at cleaning up some of the promotional writing (could still do some more probably). And I would like clarification on how he meets WP:AUTHOR Moritoriko (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's fewer book reviews than I expected to find. Jahaza (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Member of Service

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article just gives a definition of a particular term in the jargon of emergency responders and a few examples of when this term might be used. I don't see opportunities for this article to become substantially more than a definition. —Bkell (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously proposed for deletion in 2013 with the rationale "Non-notable dictionary definition" [8]; the PROD tag was removed with the comment "expandable into more than a dicdef" [9]. —Bkell (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Old PROD. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Certified first responder~~ First responder. The two web sources aren't reliable secondary sources, and as far as I can tell this is just another term for more or less the same topic. hinnk (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't clocked that there was a separate First responder article, this page links that term to Certified first responder for whatever reason. I'd still prefer a redirect over deletion since it's a plausible search term, but no strong preference on which target to use. hinnk (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not equivalent to a certified first responder which is a "a person who has completed a course and received certification in providing pre-hospital care for medical emergencies...but they are not necessarily a substitute for more advanced emergency medical care rendered by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics" it is more similar to First responder but I don't think that should be a redirect target. In my view this article can only saved by showing it is a term with a unique history and usage outside of being a possible meaning of the acronym MOS. Moritoriko (talk) 03:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox version history

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTCHANGELOG; almost no links to secondary sources. Information about releases which actually got coverage in secondary sources should be moved to the main Firefox article.

Also it's just a burden in general to maintain such constantly updated abominations, and that's exactly because they're constantly updated. MinervaNeue (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that sort of run-along-after-the-fact cataloguing is pretty much a textbook version of what Wikipedia is not. There is no point our doing an organisation's job for it, nor is the matter of any encyclopedic interest. The existing Firefox article is quite sufficient as a home for any reliable secondary-sourced material about the tool. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do it yourself then. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up someone else's trash isn't and shouldn't be my responsibility. MinervaNeue (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I have no opinion on this article/list, I did want to point out that it mostly only covers post-2011 versions, as everything before that was split into a Firefox early version history in 2019. That one obviously does not need as frequent updates as a list that is intended to contain more current information, but some of the other "not a change log" issues may apply, so a discussion for that article may also be warranted (not necessarily bundled into this one; in any event, I have no opinion on that one either). (The existence of the other page briefly came up in this article's second nomination—the first nomination predated its creation—but so far as I can tell it has never been nominated for deletion in any form itself.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the article I nominated, the one you mentioned doesn't need to be updated constantly, so I think it's fine. Though it written in prose and covering only major releases (and I'm sure there are secondary sources for all major releases of Firefox before 5.0) would be better than using tables and listing every single hotfix in them, because that would comply with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if we deleted this that one would make no sense, so surely we would have to delete it too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be rewritten to be a rules-compliat version history article in a reasonable amount of time, unlike the one we're currently discussing. Therefore I don't see any point in deleting it. MinervaNeue (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have an "early" version history without a version history article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"i don't hate the other trash so it could stay, get rid of this thing I like"

Wonder if this came from jealousy that Firefox article got chronological history instead of cluttered mess that is Chrome history Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefox early version history isn't "trash". MinervaNeue (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" almost no links to secondary sources"

Release date is a fact.

Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue Hyoroemon2 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about verifiaibility at all. If there are almost no links to secondary sources, the article is not notable. That doesn't mean it's not verifiable. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bludgeoning please. Also, your wants make no sense. why keep the article about web browsers that are barely usable anymore and no one is likely to need to care about while the more recent versions need to be deleted? Icaneditalot42 (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I use this article often and would miss it. It is a nice source for retro computing and having the information what changed when. 2003:F1:CF01:1F00:8C22:46F0:894D:D5D9 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usefulness isn't an argument for keeping an article. MinervaNeue (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that is the case, then the template chart in the Template:Timeline Mozilla Firefox is getting squeezed and crunched up with each new year until there's no room for it. I would suggest trying to remove the template altogether. Angeldeb82 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A sidenote to nominator to please stop bludgeoning the discussion unless there's a flaw in their argument with respect to the policies and guidelines. Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of various updates of firefox and many secondary sources are cited in the article. Yes this article deserves a cleanup, but I think merging information about updates to teh main firefox article doesn't make much sense as that article is already quite long and new information there would make for an obvious candidate for WP:SPLIT due to size. Keeping a separate article about firefox updates makes sense. Per WP:PRESERVE it would be preferable to improve the existing article. There are clearly more secondary sources available about updates.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delet Pretty explicit violation of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Nearly all of the article is just imported from the primary source https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/, and I fail to see why Wikipedia should list these routine changes this way. The Release compatibility section is also at Firefox#Platform availability. If someone wants to trim this 90% so that significant updates covered in independent sources are presented in a readable, encyclopedic manner, that may be appropriate, but this page, Firefox early version history, Firefox 3.5, Firefox 3.6, etc. are not really appropriate for the project, just to log every "Regular security and stability update." Reywas92^Talk 03:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty we should get rid of the Firefox 1.5/2.0/3.0/3.5/3.6 articles, there not very useful. Icaneditalot42 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Boy Gang

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poorly sourced articles whose only source are from websites that arent reliable. TzarN64 (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per WP:A7. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Deletion is indefensible under Wikipedia policy. Fly Boy Gang meets notability and sourcing requirements by a landslide, satisfying WP:GNG; WP:SIGCOV; WP:RS; WP:INDEP; WP:BAND; WP:NORG:

Annenberg School for Communication (academic) (source): "Neighborhood GD splinter group known as Fly Boy Gang (FBG) or St. Lawrence (STL) Boys—the former refers to their rap music group, the latter to STL Street, which runs directly through the Woodlawn neighborhood."

Peer-reviewed research confirming origin, structure, and cultural context.

Deadline (national entertainment) (source): "Chicago’s Fly Boy Gang [FBG], also called the Clout Boyz or 'Tooka Gang.' It features fellow rappers Lil Jay, Wooski, Billionaire Black, Young Mello, FBG Dutchie and the late FBG Duck, who was killed in 2020."

Major industry outlet providing in-depth coverage of membership and significance.

XXL (music press) (source): "FBG Duck started his hip-hop crew, Fly Boy Gang, when he was 17."

Authoritative confirmation of the founding year (2010) from a leading hip-hop magazine.

Chicago Sun-Times (local newspaper) (source): "'FBG' is an acronym for 'Fly Boy Gang,' a group known for its high-profile feuds with Chief Keef and Edai and its release of a number of songs dissing the rival rappers."

Chicago’s largest newspaper detailing the group’s activities and feuds.

ABC7 Chicago (broadcast) (source): Coverage of FBG Duck’s death explicitly naming Fly Boy Gang and situating it within the drill music scene.

Mainstream local TV news, widely regarded as reliable.

Block Club Chicago (independent local) (source): "Fly Boy Gang, a Chicago drill rap group formed on the South Side that included FBG Cash, FBG Duck, and other rappers."

Non-profit news outlet providing significant, focused coverage.

These independent, high-quality sources demonstrate sustained, substantial coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of Fly Boy Gang’s formation, membership, cultural impact, and controversies. There is no credible basis under WP:GNG or any other deletion guideline to remove this article. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some comments on the newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and my comment is that the sources are WP:PASSING mentions. It's evident from the quotes alone, and I also checked the links. The sources are therefore immaterial to claims of notability. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, these are not substantive mentions. Delete. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to FBG Duck. Geschichte is correct about the new sources. FBG itself is mentioned in passing in articles about FBG Duck or the death of FBG Cash. Patton et al. mention, but don't really analyze, FBG in the context of a case study of Twitter communications. The one source that maybe brings us closer to WP:GNG would be the HipHopCanada article already in the article, although I'm not so sure about the site's reliability. hinnk (talk) 02:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe merge some details to FBG Duck or to Gangster Disciples. Source by source response to Momentoftrue:

1. Annenberg: The quoted sentence in their reply is the only mention of Fly Boy Gang in the 19 pages. It is not significant coverage about FBG as an organization. (very interesting read, thank you for finding it)

2. Deadline: Once again the short sentence in their reply is the only content, it is not significant coverage of FBG as an organization.

3. Xxlmag: A nice interview with FBG Duck (definitely use it in his article), but its a primary source. And it is a non significant mention so it fails 2 out of 3 for giving notability.

4. Sun-Times: In-depth coverage of FBG Duck but barely a passing mention of FBG.

5. ABC7: This is not in depth coverage of Fly Boy Gang.

6. Block Club: Zero coverage of FBG as an organization.

I don't even think the the HipHopCanada article talks about the organization of FBG in any actual depth. Moritoriko (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptree Residents Association

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

I see no evidence that this organizations meets WP:NCORP, which is the applicable threshold for organizations. The coverage is fleeting and hyper-local. We don't even have an article for the council on which the only successful candidates from this group served. The only source currently in the article is from a different political party, and offers nothing more than a passing mention. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How and why was this page made? Notablen't. Moritoriko (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of the least notable pages I have seen. There are no RSes and if every single group/association ever was given its own page, it would cause a page glut. If we can find more sources for it, that is a different story but for now, this is not worth keeping. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cabell Midland High School

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

Public high school that does not appear to have received any WP:SIGCOV outside of routine coverage of sports or school events in local media. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. nf utvol (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. nf utvol (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination seems likely to fail WP:BEFORE, in that it does not mention a search for sources that would satisfy the general notability guideline, and those sources are fairly certain to exist. In particular, Cabell Midland is likely to have extensive coverage in regional news sources, including The Herald-Dispatch and Charleston Gazette-Mail, and on WSAZ-TV and its website. These would not be considered "local media" in the sense used by WP:AUD ("the weekly newspaper for a small town"), but rather media with a "regional" audience ("the biggest daily newspaper in any US State"), which would be "strong evidence of notability".

Some of this coverage will of course be routine coverage of sports or other events, but I'm quite certain the school has received other coverage over the years. It may not all be online—that's definitely an issue with these specific sources—but several years' worth of it is available online in the case of the newspapers, though you may need a subscription to access it. And since Cabell Midland is one of only two high schools in the county, it gets a fair amount of attention. This strikes me as a case where the article's authors have simply relied on the material they could most easily find and cite, rather than searching for the most reliable, independent sources possible. But since I have no doubt that better sources do in fact exist for this article, and where they can be found (though obtaining them may require a fair amount of work), I can't support this nomination. P Aculeius (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a thorough WP:BEFORE here, including searches using the WP:LIBRARY access to Newspapers.com and Newspaper Archive when I didn't find anything notable in Google search, books, or news. Newspapers.com didn't return any hits at all for this school, and Newspaper Archive was entirely limited to routine coverage of events like track meets and football scores. Do you have any specific coverage in mind that you're able to provide a citation for? nf utvol (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election

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

No evidence of notability, all I can find on this are old sources from 2023 election. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small-city elections are almost never notable. Unless there are truly unusual events, they don't receive substantial coverage, just run-of-the-mill coverage in local sources. They also don't tend to have sustained coverage. This election does not seem to be an exception from these general rules. I would also support deletion of 2023 Marlborough, Massachusetts mayoral election for the same reason - nothing but run-of-the-mill local coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to fall short of notability. If every single mayor election from every town is included, this will create page bloat. Unless there is something particularly special or notable about this election, it shouldn't be included. Also, there are not a lot of prominent RSes talking about this election either. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AIC Limited

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

The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources (e.g., reputable news, academic coverage) to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG, relying on limited promotional material AndesExplorer (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye Tuckerman

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

Non-notable. AI generated and at least some refs are fake. Polygnotus (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and can we just find some way to speedy these. Btw Polygnotus thanks for the heads up re. ANI, although the guy was blocked by the time I got there :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as there is only one notable role with some reviews. Redirect to Mamma Mia! (musical)#productions. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of coverage in digitised newspapers about her from her time in Mamma Mia from 2010-2012, certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. She probably also meets WP:NACTOR / WP:CREATIVE with her other performances and her nomination for the Africa Movie Academy Awards for design work on From a Whisper. I'll add sources to the article (and check out the existing ones). No, please let's not Speedy Delete articles like this - there is clear indication of notability in the text of this article; the refs could be improved, but that's the case with lots of WP articles, and is not a reason to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Are you basing your !vote on the fake information in the article? I looked at your contributions and the last 7 edits are keep votes for AfDs? It looks like you believe that the article is fine but the refs need to be improved, but in reality the refs are fake and fail verification. She clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. You could quibble about WP:NACTOR, but only because those standards are so much lower which is unfair and should be fixed. In any case, per WP:CONLEVEL such an WP:SNG cannot overrule WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm basing my Keep !vote on what I can see in digitised newspapers (which are also available to WP editors through the Wikipedia Library). If you have looked at my contributions, you will have seen that I put a kot of time and effort into improving articles at AfD, and as I said, I will add sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended WP:OFFTOPIC back and forth

@RebeccaGreen Hm, OK, it was just a bit weird to see 7 keep !votes in a row. I think I am more deletionist than you are. With BLPs I am always extra careful because a bad BLP can be far more harmful than a bad article about a Pokemon. I checked the Wikipedia Library (9 results for their name between doublequotes) and I don't see any sources that can be used (a name in a list is not WP:INDEPTH). Do you have access to the source I mentioned on the talkpage? Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7 Keep !votes at 20-40 minute intervals - during which I searched for sources. I don't just !vote without checking, and if I don't find much or anything in theway of sources,I !vote delete, redirect or merge. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen You are at 71.2% keep and I am at 87.0% delete Probably because we use AfD for different purposes; I use it to get rid of the trash while you perhaps use it to find things worth saving. Both are valid. Polygnotus (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus:, I don't think attempting to discredit someone's vote based on anything OTHER than the merit of their contention is appropriate. Their keep/delete ration or how fast they voted does not discount their !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Agreed, and I didn't. As I said, I just happened to notice it and it was remarkable enough to remark upon. In the future, please be more careful before writing something like that, because implying that someone did something they clearly did not is not appropriate, especially in the context of potential false allegations of bad intentions without evidence. Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very careful and I wrote exactly what I meant. While veiled, you asking if they based their vote on fake information was insinuating they lacked competence. You then proceeded to discuss their voting history instead of their contention. I do not agree with the !keep vote, but they are allowed to have it. You are free to address their contention, but saying things like "it's just weird" then sharing someone's AfD stats is about conduct, not content. If you have issue with my comment, please address at WP:ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to run to ANI every time someone makes a mistake. ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. You just made a mistake. I can just point it out and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake was made. I stand behind what I said 100%. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is allowed. I can explain something but I cannot understand it for you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was rewritten but many of the sources used do not support the claims made in the article. Polygnotus (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article, adding sources and info. I clipped the sources from Newspapers.com, so I hope they will be visible to editors who don't have a subscription. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a 3-decade career, this person has done one national tour, one ensemble role on Broadway, and a few short-running local productions, mostly in smaller parts. Her film career is even less impressive (being nominated for one local design award for a foreign art film does not make someone notable as a designer). Even though she got some press over the decades in local newspapers, she is a pretty WP:MILL actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she also played named roles in Summer: The Donna Summer Musical on Broadway, as well as playing roles in several other musicals around Australia and in Shanghai, and in cabaret in New York and Miami. I don't think a major role in a two-year tour of Mamma Mia! (musical) in the US and Canada is run-of-the-mill - it is in fact criterion 4 of WP:MUSICBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AB Custos

AfDs for this article:

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

The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG; existing content relies on trivial or promotional material. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Sweden. AndesExplorer (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025 Daraa clashes

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

Insignificant clashes article which gives little to no information to the readers. WP:NOTNEWS. Can be merged to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present). Ecrusized (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support since the article's small (the timeline only has 3 small sentences), but idk if it should merged into the Western Syria Clashes article because that's specifically about Latakia/Tartus and western Homs/Hama (though it could just be renamed to something like Assadist insurgency).

I was gonna propose making a Mohsen al-Haymed article, but he's only been reported on in 3 separate months - April 2024, January 2025, and March 2025, which might not be enough coverage for a separate article.

(If this article isn't deleted, it should be renamed to something like 2025 al-Sanamayn Clashes or al-Sanamayn Clashes (2024-2025)) Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the info to Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) wouldn't make sense, as Daraa is in southern Syria. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low level of Oppostition It should remain in place until the Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present) page issue is resolved Because only the title applies to the Western Syria Farcazo (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The scope of this article fits better within Western Syria clashes (December 2024-present), yet obviously these clashes did not take place in western Syria. Building off of this, there's significant discussion on the name of the article, and at the current moment it seems that the general consensus leans towards changing the title to a more inclusive name, but disagreement exists on what to change the name too. It might be a good idea to extend this AFD discussion until ongoing discussion on the other article is resolved. Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish place names in other countries

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

All but one entry is uncited. This fails WP:NLIST; we really need to crack down on these old, uncited naming-related lists. E_F⁵ 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list is based on an arbitrary, non-defining and trivial characteristic. Speaking to the OP's concern about a lack of citations, place name origins are often historically disputed, obscure, based on misunderstandings or poor Anglicization (e.g., Canadian, Texas), or even arbitrary (e.g., numerous American communities renamed by the U.S. Postal Service to avoid duplication). And what if the community is named after a person, geographical feature, or other community with a name similar to an Irish place? All of these factors may cast doubt on whether some entries are legitimately "Irish". Carguychris (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There do appear to be sources for Irish place names in various countries, for example Irish Place Names in Australia [10] and "Australia's Irish Place Names" in The Australasian Journal of Irish Studies [; Dictionary of Southern African Place Names [11] which identifies those that are named after places in Ireland; The Master Book of Irish Placenames has an appendix of Irish place names in America [12]; Irish Place-names in America was published in 1963 [13]; "Gaelic Surnominal Place-Names in Ireland and Their Reflection in Argentina" in Studi irlandesi : a Journal of Irish Studies (2021); The Origin and Meaning of Place Names in Canada [14] notes places in Canada named for places in Ireland - etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list of interesting and Rebecca has decent sources that could be added, but it needs major clean-up if kept. It's pretty crappy right now: most of the place articles don't actually verify that they're named after the Irish places; Longford, Victoria, Shannon, Alabama and Moorefield, Ohio are just a few found in a quick scan that are not and should be removed.
Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas92, then add WP:TNT to my nom statement. This is too decrepit to be saved. — E_F⁵ 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bangor is another that has no business being in this list: it's Welsh, not Irish. More generally, I'd go for delete, for the reasons others have given, but I don't feel strongly about it. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep with the condition of citations and extra context being added (as per WP:NOTLIST). Also I would recommend turning each list into 3 columns so the page is easier to navigate. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lyza

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

Fairly unremarkable other than a few published papers on a largely niche topic (tornadoes/severe weather). By this stretch, every meteorologist (especially many professors in academia) who author papers should have Wikipedia articles, which isn't the case. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Science. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Hate to say it but I agree that they just don't meet the bar of notability. I think instead of making new articles on meteorologists we should, as a project, work on improving the quality of existing articles; see the dreadful state of Ted Fujita, for instance. Departure– (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also say that the USA Today source doesn't mean anything for notability in my eyes. Lyza was brought on as an expert to explain the individual study about the same topic covered at EF5 drought. This is, in my eyes, as routine as coverage gets - especially his qualifications being described by USA Today as simply lead author on the new study about the EF5 tornado drought. It would be different if the article was specifically about Lyza, or if Lyza was described as being top of his field or otherwise academically vital. Departure– (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - enough sources to justify notability.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Several secondary reliable sources besides academic papers reference or interview/quote Anthony Lyza and his works, including the New York Times and many other articles: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Clearly passes the bare minimum of WP:PROF and WP:BIO, especially since the US government even posted he is a tornado “expert”. WP:PROF says if a person passes any of the listed items, then they are notable. The first point of WP:PROF is “The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.” That seems clear, given the tons of sources discussing Lyza and his work. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Alabama, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
?. The subject has a very small number of citations in GS. What is the reason for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Small? This indicates he has 13 publications from 2017-2024, +1 not listed published in January 2025. So, he has at least 14 different publications that would be on GS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - The USA Today reference is the make-or-break for me here, as it does indeed show him being mentioned in major news outlets. — E_F⁵ 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS gives 167 cites. Normally 1000+ cites is required for notability under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Oh! That is what you meant by not many GS citations. Most meteorologists use respective country-based academic publication societies, rather than GS to find sources. For example, in US is the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Just by looking at the AMS-website metrics alone for the 2025 paper that Mr. Lyza was lead author on ([23]) show 7281 full text views. AMS does not keep track directly of who cited the paper, only records of downloads and views. That paper has over 7,000 views just since January 2025 (it was released January 23, 2025). Hopefully that helps. AMS contains probably 80% of the meteorologically published papers that are often cited in textbooks or by other meteorologists. This is one of those fields of science where GS is actually not the most used/useful measurement tool. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after reading the above discussion. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are evenly divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears notable enough so it's not improper to include him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:ACADEMIC. He has a PhD, and you don't need a job at a university to be an academic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a PhD is not mentioned anywhere as a criteria for notability. Departure– (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source assessment table:

Source assessment table
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/us/severe-storms-could-bring-tornadoes-to-the-south.html	Just some quotes and mentions.	✘ No
https://www.snexplores.org/article/sneaky-dangerous-squall-line-tornadoes	Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes.	✘ No
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/weather/2025/03/07/ef5-tornado-drought-study/80476149007/	Only "[...], Lyza says" type of coverage.	✘ No
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/squall-line-tornadoes-forecast	Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes.	✘ No
https://fox11online.com/weather/weather-stories/its-been-3-decades-since-wisconsin-had-an-ef-5-tornado-are-we-due-for-another-oakfield-moore-oklahoma-enhanced-fujita-national-weather-service	Some small independent coverage on who he is, but after that, it's just quotes.	✘ No
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/weather/2022/06/09/the-perils-project-storm-field-study-is-underway-in-the-south	Tony Lyza was the field coordinator for the project’s first year of data collection in the southeast. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
https://whnt.com/weather/valleywx-blog/el-nino-la-nina-patterns-may-be-keys-to-predicting-tornado-outbreaks/	No significant coverage of him.	✘ No
https://weather.com/storms/tornado/video/11-year-ef5-tornado-drought-explained	Not a single mention of Anthony Lyza in the video.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Per my analysis, the sources presented in this discussion do not contain significant coverage of the person in question, hence he does meet WP:GNG which states that A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NACADEMIC states that an academic is notable if The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Additionally, he does not meet the rest of the criteria as set forth at WP:NACADEMIC. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: I disagree entirely with your claim that "There is no evidence in independent reliable sources that their studies have had a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." Numerous of the articles above are related to the EF5 drought study led by Mr. Lyza. In fact, Wikipedia has an entire section just about Mr. Lyza's study: EF5 drought#January 2025 study. Regarding the EF5 study led by Lyza, I can find [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. All of those sources are specifically in regards to the study produced by Lyza. Could you go into more detail and explain why ypu believe the EF5 study discussed by all of these RS do not provide such evidence? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What changed after they published their study? What "significant impacts" were there after they published their study? It's nice and all that the sources covered the study, but they don't provide evidence that it had a "significant impact" in "their scholarly discipline". For example, if there is evidence that this study led to a reform of the Enhanced Fujita scale in regards to rating tornadoes, or maybe something changed within the field of tornadoes, meteorology... that would fulfil the first criterion. But as of yet, it's probably too early to tell and it seems that most of the coverage is on the study than the authors themselves. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the EF5 drought is just a small trend in the greater subject of tornado climatology, so one study analyzing this subject in-depth wouldn't equate to "significant impact" across meteorology. Not yet, anyway. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, while it is relatively benign with general meteorology (the NWS is likely choosing to ignore it), the general public and public media have definitely picked up on it. But yes, the Lyza drought study isn't super significant in the field, mainly outlining the reasoning, which is already well-known (survey ignorance). — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, the shift focuses from academic notability to public interest and we run back into GNG arguments again. While the EF5 drought is notable and Lyza's study of it helps demonstrate that, it doesn't itself make Lyza himself notable. Departure– (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KUBE (Oregon)

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

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM), WOSL (Florida). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of defunct radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A better merge source might be the media section of Pendleton, Oregon and/or the "Defunct" section of List of radio stations in Oregon. A list of defunct stations is likely a random collection of information. Note that having a single source is not in itself a deletion criterion. I've added a bit but am not claiming the article now passes WP:GNG. This isn't an official guideline but WP:NMEDIA might be instructive. Note to all at AfD: Could we pretty please link to the guidelines we are referencing, such as "GNG", in the nomination? Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list The main problem is that PoppysButterflies is putting pages into mainspace too early across the board. Unfortunately, while Newspapers.com just added the Pendleton paper, it is right now missing from 1947 to 1964. These should be list redirects until more sourcing can be built, but the half-baked two-sentence stub will not cut it. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's 5 sentences, haha. Anyway, it looks like oregonnews.uoregon.edu (free!) is also missing those years of the East Oregonian but it might have other papers that newspapers.com doesn't have. Again, lacking sources is not a deletion criterion. And WP:BEFORE is a good guideline, especially section D. I'm not going to go to a whole lot more effort to flesh this article out but I will note that one of the problems with media sources are they often aren't covered in other media sources. Valfontis (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak draftify: most of the creator's other half-baked recent creations of this type, also solely sourced to that one dissertation, have been shipped to draftspace/AfC; this one at least has had more of a rescue attempt by others, even if it isn't enough for now. I'm thus reluctant to outright call for deletion at this time (but nor do I completely oppose it, as more minimally-sourced permastubs in this topic area is what Wikipedia does not need — we have too many lingering remnants of long-since-rejected looser inclusion standards as it is). I do outright oppose redirecting to the list of radio stations in Oregon#Defunct at this time; it is not currently listed there and thus would be a surprise. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WMBC (Mississippi)

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

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM), WOSL (Florida). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of old radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd at least like to think an 18-year station that existed ~70 years ago, when radio stations were more likely to get significant coverage than seems to be the case in 2025, would have something out there. I would be fine with a recreation with substantial sourcing and content at some point in the future, but retaining a one-sentence article that tells us nothing more than when it existed is not needed to achieve this. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Street

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

This is one of several very tiny side-street connecting two notable roads in Hong Kong. I have searched for WP:SIGCOV in English and Chinese and have not been able to do more than verify that it exists. The Chinese version of this article doesn't contain any further sources to help. I think we could mention it Queen's Road, Hong Kong#Queen's Road East but from what I can find there isn't a lot to add except that it's one of multiple small alley ways connecting two major roads. Zzz plant (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It is just a minor street. This source mentions that in 1917 Tsui In Lane was widened and renamed Anton Street. This source states that it is named after Charles Edward Anton, Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co. Other sources give it passing mentions. One approach would be to redirect it to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, then expand the entry in the list of intersections in that article as
- (N) > junction with {{anchor|Anton Street}} '''Anton Street''', a short road leading north to [[Hennessy Road]]. Created in 1917 by widening Tsui In Lane.<ref...>... Named after [[Charles Edward Anton]], Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co.<ref....>

That way the gazetteer-type information would be preserved. The other minor streets along Queen's Road East could be treated the same way. Probably less effort to boldly merge them into Queen's Road East than to put them through AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems a good idea, but I think it would look a little undue weighty in that big road article unless all of the intersections were extended beyond a line summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All the side roads should be done, including notable ones that retain their own article and ones that turn into redirects. I am not sure I have the energy to do it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Queen's Road East#Anton Street as suggested by Aymatth2 per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to elaborate slightly on my rationale -WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Francis_Street and WP:Articles for deletion/Wood Road are similar road noms which ended in delete. If you look up Anton St on g-maps you will see it is an almost comically tiny side street, and the only real facts available are that it 1) is one of many alleys in Hong Kong connecting two notable roads and 2) was named after someone notable. My view is that the existing mentions in articlespace are sufficient, and per WP:NOTDIRECTORY I weakly disagree that there is value to preserving the page history via a merge. Zzz plant (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Those AfDs were not well-attended and were from six years ago so are not good precedent to argue against a merge. Under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, when there is a good redirect or merge target as Aymatth2 has identified, that is preferable to deletion. Another merge target could be Charles Edward Anton, the namesake of the street, whose article already mentions the street. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to merge to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, since the purpose is to preserve gazeteer-type information, and Queen's Road East is the natural gazeteer parent. I have rearranged Queen's Road East a bit and added an anchor for Anton Street. I am not sure that the table format is ideal for a phone though. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Cave Conservancy

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search, and cites no references (only one external link, which is to their website). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added a source that might help. There are a lot of sites out there on this subject, as Texas is a kind of paradise for cave lovers. How well that is documented for use as sourcing, I'm not sure. — Maile (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source does not seem to contribute to WP:GNG or WP:NORG, because it is not WP:SIGCOV (it only has two sentences about the organization). As of right now, there are no sources that are secondary and reliable that are not just a passing mention - which means, there is no real reason to presume that this organization is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriyar Majidzade

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

Not a notable person. Yousiphh (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Yousiphh (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the following information refers to reliable, independent sources such as local media, as well as international media outlets such as the Voice of America, Radio Liberty, Germany's Frankfurter Rundschau, and reports from international foundations such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, this person fully and comprehensively meets the criteria for an encyclopedic person. As is also stated in Wikipedia's notability criteria:

“When using a search engine to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the search results and linked webpages.”

Wikipedia's criteria for not being notable state that if a person is notable because of their role in one event, it is uncertain whether they are an encyclopedic figure or not:

“When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.”

However, Shahriyar Majidzade has been active in many social and political fields since 2011 and continues his activities today. The following criteria confirm the notability of his journalistic work:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)

Wikipedia's goal is to benefit readers by providing information on all branches of knowledge. An “encyclopedic person” is not a title. Treating it as a title can be considered an expression of a one-sided and biased position. Wikipedia's rules and principles clearly indicate that it is a "knowledge-sharing" platform, not a "title-granting" one. Being included in the encyclopedia means collecting information about that person's notable public and political activities in one place and making this information, along with citations, easily and comprehensively accessible to anyone who wants to access information. This is also in line with the principle of "Free content that anyone can use", which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

No detailed search was conducted, no correction was suggested, no justification was requested, and no specific criteria for deletion were specified in the request for deletion of this article. Wikipedia's criteria for a candidate for a request for deletion and speedy deletion are as follows:

If no criterion can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then three deletion procedures can be considered.

Shahriyar Majidzade's social and political activities are as follows:

In 2011, he founded the newspaper “Etatist” and is the author of many research articles published in this newspaper: (REFERENCE 1 - MUSAVAT.COM )
In 2012, he founded the online newspaper “Etatist” and served as its editor-in-chief. The Etatist online newspaper operated until 2020.
In 2012, he founded the youth organization National Idea Center and served as its chairman until 2018. (REFERENCE 1 - QAFQAZINFO.AZ) (REFERENCE 2 - YOUTUBE)
During its active years, the organization held over 60 open seminars, various events, and youth discussions with the participation of local socio-political figures, poets and writers, professors, and historians. It also organized open seminars featuring members of the diplomatic corps and heads of local offices of transnational companies, as well as training programs for young people. (REFERENCE 1 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 2 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - ETATIST.COM) (REFERENCE 4 - RADIO LIBERTY) (REFERENCE 5 - RADIO LIBERTY)
In the parliamentary elections of the Republic of Azerbaijan held in November 2015, Shahriyar Majidzade ran as an independent candidate from the 95th Tartar electoral district. During his meetings with voters, he faced restrictions, and his father and representative, Sardar Hamidov, was detained by the police. At the time, media outlets nominated the 95th Tartar electoral district as one of the three most active districts in the country. (REFERENCE 1 - MUSAVAT.COM) (REFERENCE 2 - RADIO LIBERTY)
Shahriyar Majidzade is the co-founder and the director of Kitabistan Publishing House, which was established in 2016. He is the publisher of famous books published in Azerbaijani such as "Finland: The Country of White Lilies", "The Jewish State", "The Story of an Idealist", "The Genius Dictator", etc. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - QAYNARINFO.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 4 - KULIS.AZ) (REFERENCE 5 - RADIO LIBERTY) (REFERENCE 6 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 7 - VOICE OF AMERICA )
Kitabistan is currently a member of the international organization EURead. (REFERENCE 1 - EUREAD)
In 2018, Shahriyar Majidzade organized organized a presentation event for the Azerbaijani translation of Sandra Roelofs’ autobiographical book.Sandra Roelofs is the wife of Mikheil Saakashvili and the former First Lady of Georgia. She was presented with an honorary award in the event by Shahriyar Majidzade. (REFERENCE 1 - MODERN.AZ) (REFERENCE 2 - AZVISION.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - ETATIST.COM) (REFERENCE 4 - AXAR.az)
In 2018, the National Idea Center ceased its activities due to pressure, and Shahriyar Majidzade continued his work at Kitabistan. Since then, Kitabistan began operating as a research center, not only publishing books but also organizing conferences for foreign experts in Azerbaijan and conducting interviews with foreign experts and ambassadors in the country. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 3 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 4 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 5 - GUNUNSESI.INFO) (REFERENCE 6 - YOUTUBE ) (REFERENCE 7 - VOICE OF AMERICA )
In 2019, Shahriyar Majidzade organized the book presentation of "The Genius Dictator" by one of Turkey's most renowned scholars, Professor Celal Şengör, and also organized the professor’s meeting with young people in Baku. (REFERENCE 1 - VOICE OF AMERICA )
On the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Azerbaijan and Finland in 2022, Shahriyar Majidzade organized a conference by Henrik Meinander, a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the Society of Swedish Literature in Finland, and Professor at the University of Helsinki, on "The Role of Education in Finnish History. Education and Life in Finland." (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - YOUTUBE ) (REFERENCE 3 - GUNUNSESI.INFO )
A few months later, a conference on "Education in Switzerland and Swiss Neutrality" was held with featuring Wolf Linder, a member of the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Science Council, a professor of political science, and Sean Muller, a professor at the University of Bern and head of the "Eccellenza" project at the University of Lausanne. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2- GUNUNSESI.INFO )
In 2024, he organized the first conference in Azerbaijan on "Freedom to Publish and Censorship", featuring as lecturer the Secretary General of the International Publishers Association (IPA), José Borghino, and presented him with an honorary award. (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG) (REFERENCE 2 - RADIO LIBERTY)
In the same year, he organized a conference featuring Laurent Goetschel, director of the Swisspeace peace research institute and professor of political science at the University of Basel, on the topic "The Significance of Peacebuilding in Times of Geopolitical Changes". (REFERENCE 1 - KITABISTAN.ORG)
He participated again as an independent candidate in the elections to the National Assembly of the Republic of Azerbaijan held on September 1, 2024, running for the 97th Tartar-Aghdara-Goranboy district. (REFERENCE 1 - KAS.DE) (REFERENCE 2 - KAS.DE) (REFERENCE 3 - YOUTUBE) (REFERENCE 4 - GUNDEMXEBER.AZ) (REFERENCE 5 - FR.DE) (REFERENCE 6 - RADIO LIBERTY ) (REFERENCE 7 - RADIO LIBERTY ) (REFERENCE 8 - RADIO LIBERTY )
He was the concept creator of the "Nordic Talks: Nordic Green Model" project, which began in June 2024 and continued until October. The conference held within the framework of the project featured 4 climate experts from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, and ambassadors and diplomats from these countries participated in the panel discussion. (REFERENCE 1 - NORDERNTALKS.COM) (REFERENCE 2 - REPORT.AZ) (REFERENCE 3 - QAYNARINFO.AZ )

1amroff (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: None of a single reason for a notability. Most references are hard to analyze. Not related and ambiguous citations. Yousiphh (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough reliable sources for Majidzade to pass WP:GNG, in particular the coverage in Frankfurter Rundschau. That said, the article is in need of cleanup to keep only relevant facts supported by secundary sources and to achieve a balanced and neutral tone.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that I have been contacted via email and asked to vote Keep on this, a violation of our policies on Canvassing. I am likely not the only user who 1amroff reached out to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the creator of this article (@1amroff) will do such things, the activities and significance of the person of this article is and should be a subject of discussion. I totally disagree with @Ruud Buitelaar about enough reliable sources for Majidzade. Yousiphh (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was e-mailed by user 1amroff as well. Lefcentreright Discuss 17:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User @1amroff left a message on my talk page with a request to look into this AfD case. That is highly unusual. He did the same with half a dozen other editors. I did not receive an email and was not requested to vote either way. I do read German easily so I looked into it and found some articles in Frankfurter Rundschau, here and here. There is also coverage by Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, for example here. Therefore I conclude that there is enough substantive, independent coverage to sustain the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was also emailed by the user. Encoded Talk 💬 18:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we have some views from people who WEREN'T off-wiki canvassed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes there are a lot of refs that someone included in this AfD. But none of those refs seem to be reliable secondary sources. Citing "YouTube" repeatedly will not help your case. Angryapathy (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Azerbaijani service of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Azerbaijani service of the Voice of America, local media organizations, and the official websites of government agencies are all reliable secondary sources. I am adding some of them again for you. At the same time, I am also re-adding the link to the interview about the parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan published on the German-language fr.de, and the link to the reports published by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Please feel free to check them.

Frankfurter Rundschau 1 - Germany/Media

Frankfurter Rundschau 2 - Germany/Media

Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation 1 - Germany

Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation 2 - Germany

EU-Azerbaijan Business Forum

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 1

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 2

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 3

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 4

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 5

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 6

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 7

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 8

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 9

Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 10

Central Election Committee 1

Central Election Committee 2

Central Election Committee 3

Central Election Committee 4

Central Election Committee 5

Central Election Committee 6

Voice of America 1

Voice of America 2

Voice of America 3

Voice of America 4

Meydan TV

REPORT.AZ

APA.az 1

APA.az 2

Musavat.com 1

Musavat.com 2

Gununsesi.info

Qaynarinfo.az

Gundemxeber.az 1

Gundemxeber.az 2

Modern.az 1

Modern.az 2

Sherg.az

Azvision.az

Qafqazinfo.az Cafar Quluyev (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public Citizen Texas

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

Subject does not appear notable as a standalone article, just because it is a branch of a notable organization. I would recommend delete or redirect to Public Citizen. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PROMO, I do think there is also a COI issue by usernames TruthTexan and OP CitizenDC, which have names obviously in favor of Public Citizen Texas ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Foundation

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

Subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I feel like the subject isn't notable, and even if it was, it would likely be a case of WP:BLP1E. For example, the People and USA Today article are solid to establish notability, but with one catch - that's only about the founder starting the nonprofit. There's no sustained coverage aside from that. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, Texas, and North America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage like AJC D1 + AJC D6, The Monitor, Austin American-Statesman, Business World New Dehli. This coverage is significant and focuses on the organization. Nnev66 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Austin-American Statesman and The Monitor are local coverage which don't count towards WP:NGO. AJC D1+D6 are the same sources, but combined are not significant/very short and original research would be needed to write an article. The Business World New Delhi article reads like a press release - unless further sources are presented, the subject does not meet WP:NGO and WP:BLP1E still stands. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't Austin coverage count? Even if it didn't, there are other references that are not based in Austin like the Atlanta Journal Constitution and Business World New Dehli (linked above) which aren't yet in the article but count towards notability. Also, the Miracle Foundation is an international organization, not local to Austin. In addition, BLP1E doesn't apply here because Miracle Foundation is an organization, not a person. Nnev66 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E is for the individuals, not organizations. The coverage is also significant. Shankargb (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, Shankargb is correct that BLP1E is not applicable to organizations (BLP1E = biography of living person, one event). Regardless, the article was created and often edited by a single purpose account, and the sources are inadequate e.g. founder's hometown newspaper Austin-American Statesman is local coverage which is insufficient per WP:NGO. I don't know if Business World New Delhi is WP:RS for an NGO, especially not if it read like a press release. The organization was founded in 2000, yet there has been only passing mention of it in 25 years. I also agree with what WormEater13 said about the article needing an entire rewrite due to both inadequate sourcing AND the fact that it is in bad shape (sentence fragments, bad grammar, etc.) but that is an aside; it isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion.--FeralOink (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bat Cave

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

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search - there are articles such as the Austin Chronicle, but they are not WP:SIGCOV so there's no reason to presume that the subject is notable. The current state of the article also only has one reference, which is their own website. Also slight WP:NPOV issues. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, I have begun to add references to the article and fix the language. I am still finding more refs, but it is already a very different article than what it was before. StonyBrook _babble 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Innova Champion Discs

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

Article on a disc golf equipment manufacturer entirely reliant on primary or non-independent sources that doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. While they do appear on the surface to be a fairly major supplier of equipment, a search did not reveal any additional sources that would lend notability, with all results limited to either press releases, the organization's corporate website, or listings in shopping sites. The single book referenced in the article only contains passing mentions of the company. nf utvol (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, and California. nf utvol (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is an excellent example of counterproductive deletionism. Innova is undoubtedly one of the most prominent companies in the sport of disc golf, with numerous references available to support this assertion. You are welcome to mark the article as lacking references, but a deletion request is unwarranted. Iketsi (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In order to support your claims, please provide the references. My WP:BEFORE review didn't turn up anything that would contribute to notability; if it's as prominent and important as you say it is, then I should have been able to find more than press releases, photo credits in a book, and listings on sporting goods sites. nf utvol (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Star in Sight

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

Multiple citations failed verification. About all that seems to be passing verification are primary texts and biographies written by Thelema adherents. Article is something of a coatrack, more concerned with A∴A∴ and Great Work (Thelema) than with the actual topic of discussion. This article should be deleted with the notable material being merged, after verification of citations actually saying what they're citing, to those two articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)>[reply]
Delete this meaningless word salad only sourced to in-bubble "sources" - what I would call "woo." (I note that there is nothing worth merging into those other two articles either.) - Roxy the dog 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the sources, both ones included and not included here, it is notable for both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The primary Crowley sources are an issue as is the infamous Eye in the Triangle & Grant, but the other sources are reliable and not from believers, and there are more than that. Crowley has simply had a lot written about him, and an individual text is a discrete enough topic that it can have a defined scope. The coattrack issue is true but not the point of WP:TNT because it canjust be trimmed. I would say keep and just trim the stuff that is less about the text/puffery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did notice the part where, before starting this AfD I found multiple citations that failed verification, yeah? A citation being in the article is not an indication the citation even mentions the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtehal Abu Saad

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

WP:BLP1E Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microsoft#2020–present: Acquisitions, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows 11, last sentence about the 50th anniversary. I doubt that event is notable since it seems like ye regular burst of NotNews coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename -- this is an oversimplification of BLP1E. BLP1E requires three things for deletion -- first, the subject is known for only one thing, second, they are low-profile, third, the event is not significant or their role was not substantial. Her role was very clearly substantial. We can debate whether the event is significant, but given it got so much news coverage, I would say it is worth keeping. This article should be moved to a title like "Microsoft 50th anniversary disruptions", not deleted, to comply with BLP1E. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The event isn't that significant either per WP:ContinuedCoverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear-cut BLP1E.
- Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. All sources in the article are about the subject's protest.
- The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. The subject has not done any interviews or media appearances after the protest.
- The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. The protest lasted less than a minute and did not lead to any changes in Microsoft policy. It is not even worth mentioning in a "History of Microsoft" article. An article about the protest would fail WP:NEVENT.

Astaire (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Meditation Day

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

I am not seeing any reliable-source secondary coverage of this UN General Assembly-declared awareness day for a pass of WP:GNG. Like the sources in the article, the sources in the WP:BEFORE search are all unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA churnalism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spirituality. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have so far found newspaper articles about a World Meditation Day in June in 1968, and on the 3rd Sunday of each month in 1988. Still looking for this one .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zexzy

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

Subject does not meet GNG or NMUSIC. Princess of Ara 13:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 13:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as 1, 2. I also added 3 new ones 3, 4, 5.Darkm777 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have significant, reliable, and independent secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Source 1, amassing 7 million streams doesn't qualify towards NMUSIC. Source 2 is an interview. Source 3 is an interview and music video of the subject. Source 4 talks again about streams. Source 5 is again an interview. Source 6 does not appear like a credible source and references his IG account, talking about a traffic jam the subject caused in Kenya with his outfit. Source 7 talks about streams. Source 8 talks about streams on Youtube. Source 9 is the same as Source 8. Source 10 is not a credible source and talks about the same thing as Source 8 & 9. Source 11 is the same issue as Source 10. It's WP:TOOSOON for this article I believe. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 22:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Are the songs recognized enough to establish notability? Owoso2025 (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: There are enough good sources to establish the notability of his song "Obsession" ([32], [33], [34]), and only one source for "Live" ([35]). Two sentences for his music career. I think it's WP:TOOSOON. —LastJabberwocky (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macan Band

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

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

The significance of the person is not shown. Only genealogical information and the cause of his death are given. – RobertVikman 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (his father) per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came here expecting this to be an easy delete !vote on a non-notable minor noble. However, a web search for "christoph zu hohenlohe", one version of his German name, turns up a bunch of significant coverage: [36][37][38], most of it about his death but some from long afterwards (that last link is from 2020). I'm gonna do a deeper dive for sourcing, but I'm leaving this here for now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is English-language sigcov on his death the Independent article already cited in the article [39], and French/German coverage in "L'étrange mort d' un noble lausannois", L'Illustré, 16.08.2006 by Arnaud Bédat; "Prinzessin Ira von Fürstenberg «Man hat meinen Sohn umgebracht»", Glückspost, 17.08.2006, by Marco Hirt and Roswitha vom Bruck;"Ende eines Genfer Jetset-Prinzen", Tages-Anzeiger, 11.08.2006, by Bernhard Hülsebusch. There is also an article over 1000 words long in the Sonntagsblick of 20.08.2006, titled "Keine Maiglöckchen im Knast", by Helmut-Maria Glogger.

Good search terms include "Christoph von Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz von Hohenlohe", "Christoph zu Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg" (which appears to be his full and correct title), and "Christoph Vittorio Umberto" (his full first names). I see some articles from the time saying that his death was first reported in the Italian press, which I do not have great access too – for instance, my sources mention his brother and mother speaking to the Corriere della Sera, but I cannot find the original coverage in that paper. (The article current links to an English translation of a Corriere article, but this doesn't quote Ira, so clearly there was more.)

I don't think BLP1E or BIO1E preclude an article here, but in case that comes up I've also found some indications that he received significant coverage before his death. He is mentioned repeatedly in articles about his mother, Ira von Fürstenberg (a very underdeveloped article – she seems to have been quite famous). In a 1978 interview of Ira in the Schweizer Illustrierte, Christoph is mentioned several times, not least when the interviewer asks "Christoph hat anscheinend, wie man in den Zeitungen lesen kann, einen Riesenerfolg bei Frauen." ("Christoph clearly has, as one can read in the newspapers, great success with women.") – so he was clearly being covered elsewhere, too. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adamu Hashimu Ranga

The result was speedy keep.‎ Wbm4567 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article does not appear to credibly indicate the importance and/or significance of the subject. Wbm4567 (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [they also do not appear to create the importance of their subjects.]:

Wbm4567 (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedily so, all nominated pages meet WP:NPOL as elected members of a national legislature. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do they? Wbm4567 (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok, I got it now. Speedy keep it is. Wbm4567 (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackloaded

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

Non-notable website. Fails NCORP or the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Trackloaded meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) through significant coverage in independent, reliable sources:

- Mentioned in Pulse Nigeria, referencing its lyrics/media section
- Cited by Legit.ng in entertainment industry commentary
- Awarded "Best Entertainment News Media Platform" by MEA Markets in 2024
- Recognized as "Best Entertainment & Media Platform – West Africa" at Innovation in Business Awards 2024
- Reached 4.4 million listeners on Audiomack, indicating real-world cultural and public impact

The article is neutrally written and sourced to meet the notability criteria under both GNG and NCORP for media-related topics. It documents a notable Nigerian digital platform with verified third-party recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oloyede2003 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qaumi Duniya Daily

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

This is not a notable subject, as it fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and does not meet the standards suggested in WP:NNEWSPAPER.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Checked on Google, found nothing reliable about this subject. Absolutely non-notable.

Afstromen (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taasir

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

The creator of this article has been blocked for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles that were speedily deleted. The current article is written in an advertising tone and lacks any reliable sources (WP:RS) to support its inclusion on Wikipedia.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 12:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions of dominance

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

Fails WP:NOTESSAY. LR.127 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite de Baugé

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. Very little information in article besides that she owned a castle and married someone else who may be notable.ash (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Field (Designer)

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

I declined an WP:A7 tag on this article as there is a claim for working on the Vauxhall SRV, but although that appears in sources, there is only a minor trivial passing claim for it. The "(Designer)" disambiguator makes it an unsuitable redirect target per WP:ATD-R. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ran a WP:BEFORE search nothing came out for this person. All that are there for him are social media and self published website postings. Patre23 (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:A7, no credible claim of significance. I (mistakenly) deleted this version as A7 a minute or so after Ritchie had declined deletion – it had taken me that short time to establish that the claim that he was "responsible" for the design of that car was not supported by the source cited, which stated clearly that the person responsible was someone called Wayne Cherry. There was no other claim of significance – credible or not – in the page then, and there is not now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Mitrović (footballer, born January 2002)

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

He only played 19 minutes of professional football before spending his career in the second tier. A cursory search brought up the notable international footballer Stefan Mitrović born in the same year. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:43, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recursion Pharmaceuticals

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources and reads more like a promotional piece than a neutral encyclopedia entry. If most of the content comes from press releases or affiliated sources, OatPancake (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nkiru Olumide-Ojo

AfDs for this article:

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

This source is unavailable [40]; this one is interview with press-release [41]; this is not reliable [42]; this source [43] has only person's comments, not coverage on them. And so on OatPancake (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried looking for book reviews, this one seems ok [44], second one is unsigned and reads like promo [45]. Rest of what's used in the article is either primary or not helpful. I've found two book reviews, but the second just doesn't seem reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found only two sources out of the bunch cited in the article. But it's disappointing that those two sources are not enough to cross the borderline of WP:ANYBIO. Patre23 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Studiosity

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

lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most references are either press releases, primary sources. Also this article contains promotional content. OatPancake (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. But the article is poorly written and the language is not neutral. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @TurboSuperA+ Thanks for the feedback and support. Language may not be neutral, but from what I've read and contributed, it keeps to WP:NPOV and the article represents "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Derek J Moore (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Most references are either press releases, primary sources" There are 10 references included, 6 of them have a DOI and ISSN. The AFR article is not a press release, Julie Hare has 20 years in her field as an education journalist. The article has both critical and pragmatic. I cannot see how this is promotional Derek J Moore (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Nunn (artist)

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

Nunn appears to be a successful professional in his field of illustration, but after a fair bit of looking I can't turn up much proper, independent sigcov. None of his three illustrated books pass a strict WP:NBOOK, though the Corbyn Colouring Book got a good number of brief mentions. I found a non-independent interview, but no proper profiles. I don't see WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are too thin for a pass at notability... He's not listed in the Getty ULAN [46], this was the only hit on the name [47], but it's an unrelated child. I don't see enough reviews/substantial reviews to pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found - and have added into the article - a couple of sources with more WP:SIGCOV - road.cc (review of the Tour de France book) and BuzzFeed (review of the Jeremy Corbyn colouring book), both of which mention his creation of the Eats, Shoots & Leaves book cover. Taking those into account, and some of the existing sources, I'd say that there's a reasonable argument for notability now. Were the article to be kept, there is probably some copyediting to be done and trimming of less stellar or redundant sources, e.g. Daily Mail, Worldcat; I didn't want to remove sources during AfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable sources for the infomraton presenting in the article. Source assessment table below. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2893742/Insomnia-work-like-dream.html		Per WP:RSP	passing mention	✘ No
http://jamesnunn.co.uk/about/			primary source	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20201029112047/https://road.cc/content/news/208133-colouring-tour-de-france-coming-bookshop-near-you-next-month			churnalism	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20231120180859/https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-peoples-flag-needs-colouring-in		Per WP:RSP		✘ No
http://jamesnunn.co.uk/home/?covers			primary source	✘ No
https://search.worldcat.org/title/1127946427?oclcNum=1127946427			WorldCat listing proves the coloring book exists only	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/04/books-best-stocking-fillers-2015			listicle	✘ No
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-021-00185-5?fromPaywallRec=false	To build a new Jezrusalem: an historical institutionalist analysis of the origins of the Corbyn era in the Labour party		random article - no mention of James Nunn	✘ No
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/atticus-sorry-lady-grantham-but-you-are-splitting-heirs-pd3xzp3fg33	Atticus: Sorry, Lady Grantham, but you are splitting heirs		passing mention	✘ No
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298264/Red-pencils-ready-Jeremy-Corbyn-COLOURING-BOOK-goes-sale-left-wing-publishing-enjoys-winter-content.html		Per WP:RSP	promotional review	✘ No
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/secret-gardens-vogue-and-jeremy-corbyn-2015s-best-colouring-book/			listicle	✘ No
https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/yellow-jersey-publish-tour-de-france-colouring-book-405901			publication notice in Bookseller magazine	✘ No
https://www.counterfire.org/article/after-the-eating-and-drinking-the-sporty/	A selection of 2017 sporting reads by Mark Perryman for the post-festive recovery period		listicle	✘ No
https://theartbuyer.co.uk/a-discussion-with-the-artist-james-nunn/			interview in the Art Buyer with link to sales area	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment The subject has illustrated many books and book covers. I have so far found 3 reviews of the YA book White Horse by Yan Ge, translated by Nicky Harman, illustrated by James Nunn, all of which mention the illustrations [48], [49], [50]. I will look for more reviews of books he illustrated. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharjah Sustainable City

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns raised. I am currently improving the article by adding more independent, reliable sources that provide neutral coverage of the subject. Additionally, I am revising the content to ensure a strictly factual and non-promotional tone, in line with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Given that the project has received coverage in independent media outlets (such as [Shurooq]), I believe the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. I respectfully request additional time to complete these improvements. Below are the links for your reference.

https://shurooq.gov.ae/portfolio/sharjah-sustainable-city

https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/property/sharjah-sustainable-city-hits-dh2-5-billion-in-sales

https://gulfnews.com/uae/watch-a-sustainable-city-rises-in-sharjah-with-smart-solar-homes-driverless-shuttle-1.86314388

https://www.wam.ae/en/article/dvef0-sharjah-sustainable-city-community-integrating

https://property.constructionweekonline.com/sharjah-sustainable-city-pioneering-eco-friendly-living-and-boosting-uae-real-estate/ 94.203.35.126 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are independent of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Night Stream

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

Does not have significant independent coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any community consensus that short films cannot be redirected to list articles? According to a discussion at WP:FILM, films can redirect to list articles - are there any list articles that would be appropriate here? I'm not sure if films without articles (let alone short films) can be added to articles like List of American films of 2013 - however at the same time there does not seem to be any requirements on the page as far as inclusion goes. So with that in mind, this could probably be added and redirected to List of American films of 2013. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sol Foundation

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

More than a year ago, Melcous correctly added our template for excessive reliance on non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources to this article on a UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan.

In any case ,the underlying issue has gone unresolved. I conducted a truncated WP:BEFORE consisting exclusively of a Google News search (because, given the subject, it's obviously not going to appear in any journal or book).

This search found pages upon pages of references to this outfit which might incline the casual observer to presume it passes WP:N. However, on close inspection, most of these are to The Debrief, which is unambiguously non-RS. Its editor-in-chief is Micah Hanks (who also reports on Sasquatch, [51] wrote the foreword to a "non-fiction" book on monsters that purportedly live in South Carolina [52], wrote a book about something called "ghost rockets" [53], and used to host a podcast about ghosts and ESP) The other contributors of this site come from a similar pedigree.

Additional sources are WP:ROUTINE (e.g. an event listing at the San Francisco Standard [54]) or are purely incidental mentions, such as organization officers being quoted by title in stories.

Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Paranormal, Politics, and Science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion. Regardless of individual beliefs about UAPs, the topic is widely covered by mainstream media, government sources, and academic commentary. Wikipedia’s role is to document verifiable information, not to judge its validity. Deleting well-sourced content undermines neutrality and public access to information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hempanicker (talk • contribs)

Keep this article. To describe Dr. Nolan as an 'enthusiast' is a deliberately biasing term meant to diminish. Such derogatory language should not be used in a delete argument per rules. Dr. Nolan is a noted research scientist. Of one wants to describe a noted scientist with nearly 400 peer reviewed papers as an enthusiast, then one might also say Chetsford, the person proposing this deletion, is an enthusiast for anti-science propaganda. The Sol Foundation has now published several pure research papers on the subject of NHI (which by the way is mentioned in the UAP Disclosure act as put forward by Senators Schumer and Rounds) multiple times as a global definition of not just the idea of "aliens" but also any other non-human intelligence that might have originated on Earth prior to humanity. The pogrom driven by Chetsford, LuckyLouie and others is a malicious attempt against freedom of information and should be resisted. TruthBeGood (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC) — TruthBeGood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Comment: The Guideline for establishing notability in this instance is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). 5Q5|^✉ 11:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- Additional possible sourcing found in under <5 minutes of minimal effort:

EDIT 1: Upgrading to strong keep. I'm already integrating these. The PopMatters article (link) is literally an entire piece devoted to the Foundation and their Symposium just by itself.

EDIT 2: I'm still finding more sources. Google Sol Foundation without quotes, add various flags like +Nolan, +UAP, +research, +UFO, +military, and so on--there's plenty. I again stand by this being an easy keep. I'm already adding sources to the live article, and there's plenty more I can add in the next few days. Have at it, all. It is unclear how OP missed all these. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT 3, again reaffirm my Strong Keep; I've added yet more sources, and here is the current references section: The Sol Foundation#References. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.popmatters.com/sol-foundation-symposium-ufos-uap

https://oxfordre.com/literature/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1348

https://mitechnews.com/guest-columns/sol-foundation-releases-17-videos-from-ufo-conference/

https://substack.com/home/post/p-142904928

https://www.courant.com/2023/11/22/how-a-stanford-professor-aims-to-organize-the-hunt-for-alien-life/

https://www.firstprinciples.org/article/serious-physicists-are-talking-about-ufos-what-changed

https://exopolitik.org/hochrangige-insider-beraten-ueber-die-zukunft-der-ufo-offenlegung/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/issj.12484

https://nowcreations.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/10-Reasons-to-Consider-the-Possibility-of-_Beyond-human-Intelligence-No-11-Sept-2024.pdf

I see more mentions yet on Google News and Google Scholar that are required to be considered. Premature nomination. Just because an article is a stub that no one has had the time or energy or will to build from available data doesn't mean it's not notable or should be deleted based on not being "done".

I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it? Certainly not. The one article I linked on the talk page alone has enough outbound links to quash any AfD there. I have found a raft of material there with a minimum energy of effort--it took me less than 5 minutes to find what I linked here for Sol Foundations. See next Joint Geological and Geophysical Research Station that at first glance was hard to source, but I dug into enough data that now it's fine. This is an endemic problem on Wikipedia it appears? Just because the one user cannot or will not find data doens't mean a topic isn't notable. [[55]] is how I found Invention Secrecy Act, and now when I get the will and time to go back to it, I'm not even a third of the way into the sourcing I have saved. A more "done" article will have 70-80+ sources, not just 24. The same thing happened with how I found this article and how it's references look today. This article here was a particular pain to source and had one (1) source when I found it; click to see the current version. Just because an article takes work and is a stub still doesn't mean it's not notable.

It's also obvious "not just The Debrief" as sourcing, which is not a disallowed source in any event under any rational or widely accepted rules nor precedent or RfD or discussions anywhere. Keep for The Sol Foundation. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford reference doesn't mention this at all, "exopolitik.com" is clearly not RS, a Substack newsletter with 8 subscribers is not RS, a PDF on the website of a guy in Ohio named Vince who works on "raising the consciousness of the planet as part of the Universal Life Force" [sic] is not RS, etc., etc., etc.
"I started Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review just yesterday -- based on what that article looks like, would you delete it?" Based on the sources you attached to your Keep !vote here, I'm very tempted to look at it. Chetsford (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS are out of place at AfD. Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Remain Keep. Hartford Courant, Poptech, Mitechnews, First Principles, the social science journal, what's already in the article and I stopped on sources after a few pages. A topic doesn't require sourcing to be WP:GNG that means it can grow beyond a stub. A stub-level topic can be perfectly notable, and no rule says or ever will say otherwise. Keep. Also, you need to change your needlessly aggressive tone and stance, along with the routine WP:Civility boundary-pushing threats you have been applying to your recent spree of UAP-related AfDs after the Harald Malmgren AfD debacle you initiated that led to Jimmy Wales getting involved due to your actions. From an Administrator, it is grossly inappropriate. You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity. Ego has neither role nor allowance here. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chetsford's consistent use of biased terms reveals a strange anti-knowledge bias. Further, Chetsford's characterization of Nolan running a "UFO club run by enthusiast Garry Nolan" dismisses the fact that SOL is an accredited 501-c3 which has garnered several million dollars in funding, ran 2 symposia, been the focus of dozens of news articles (as noted by others), etc. is further indication that Chetsford is running a non-scientific and biased agenda not based on Wiki rules but on his personal belief system. Professor Nolan is a world-renowned immunologist, founder of several successful companies, has dozens of US patents to his name, etc. so the purposeful use of derogatory language is reason alone for ignoring his arguments. Frankly, at this point given his past actions against Malmgren it is a surprise he does not lose his editor status and be banned. TruthBeGood (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both per the nominator's openening argument and their subsequent rebuttal of the supposed 'sourcing' presented. We require independent, third party sources and unfortunately none of any quality have been offered. I note that so far, both 'keep' !votes not only fail to present policy-based arguments for maintaining the article, but are littered with aspersions and near-personal attacks (e,g the nom's so-called "bias", "threats" and alleged immaturity)—while themselves demanding civility! To quote, these have "neither role nor allowance here". Neither, of course, does WP:Argumentum ad Jimbonem, aka WP:JIMBOSAID. (Also, from a purely formating point of view, could we only bold our !votes once, please.) I have hatted the aspersons, etc., above; if they are repeated I will seek administrative involvement. The ubnderstanable passons that AfD can sometimes generate is no excuse for assuming bad faith. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per rules please point out exactly the aspersion cast. Don't claim you want sources while not providing any specifics. Chetsford and others have already been chastised for their behavior. Pointing this out is not an aspersion, just a fact. Now-- to policy...

Arguing policy: Under WP:GNG an article is retained when independent, reliable secondary sources provide significant coverage—coverage that is neither trivial nor purely routine. The Sol Foundation article meets that threshold: a feature story in the Hartford Courant profiles the group’s formation and scientific aims, offering far more depth than a press notice; Newsweek devotes several paragraphs to the Foundation’s inaugural symposium and quotes its mission statement in the context of national UAP-policy debates; the Daily Express, Sunday World, and Germany’s Focus supply further analysis of its policy recommendations. Because these outlets have no editorial connection to the Foundation, each instance satisfies WP:RS and demonstrates the independence required by WP:V. Taken together, the sources show sustained, serious reportage—not fleeting mentions—so the article clears GNG without difficulty.

WP:ORG presumes notability when multiple reliable publications discuss an organization in detail, and the Foundation easily qualifies. A culture-journalism treatment in PopMatters chronicles its November 2024 symposium and describes the think-tank’s research agenda; a peer-reviewed paper in Wiley’s International Social Science Journal cites the Foundation’s role in advancing UAP scholarship, establishing academic relevance; trade coverage in Aerospace America and mainstream religious press such as Catholic News Service document its participation in government-civic forums. That range—from metropolitan newspaper to peer-reviewed journal—confirms breadth of interest across sectors and disciplines, negating any claim that the topic relies on press releases or fringe blogs. Because Wikipedia evaluates notability by what independent authors have written, not by the subject’s fame, the clustering of these independent, substantive sources fulfills both the letter and the spirit of WP:ORG; deletion would therefore contradict core inclusion policy.

Under WP:NPOV the encyclopedia must represent all significant, verifiable perspectives without editorial prejudice. The existing Sol Foundation article does exactly that: it reports the group’s origins, research aims, and public activities strictly as described in independent secondary sources, while attributing any evaluative language—positive or skeptical—to those sources. There is no advocacy or promotional tone; where reliable outlets raise doubts the article can and should include them in proportion, preserving balance. By contrast, deletion proposals that dismiss the foundation as a mere “UFO club” or label its founder an “enthusiast” introduce pejorative framing not supported by the cited coverage and thus clash with NPOV’s prohibition on subjective language.

Removing a well-sourced article because some editors question the topic’s legitimacy would itself create a neutrality problem: it would excise documented information from mainstream newspapers, journals, and trade magazines, leaving Wikipedia’s treatment of UAP research incomplete and skewed by omission. NPOV requires that content be judged on the reliability and independence of its sources, not on individual editors’ attitudes toward unconventional subjects. Keeping the article therefore upholds neutrality by presenting verifiable facts for readers to evaluate, whereas deletion would substitute editorial bias for documented evidence—contradicting both NPOV and the broader principle that Wikipedia “does not censor topics that are reliably sourced, even if controversial or fringe.”

Opponents claim the article “fails GNG” because its citations are routine or incidental, yet the record shows multiple feature-length, independent pieces—Hartford Courant profile, PopMatters symposium report, Newsweek analysis, Wiley journal article—that exceed the “significant coverage” threshold in WP:GNG and satisfy WP:ORG’s requirement for reliable, third-party sourcing. Those who invoked WP:BEFORE overlooked or dismissed these sources; the assertion that such material “obviously won’t appear in any journal or book” is disproven by the peer-reviewed ISSJ paper. In short, the corpus is more than adequate, and routine mentions are supplementary, not foundational. Labeling Hartford Courant, Newsweek, or Wiley as “none of any quality” misstates WP:RS; these outlets are plainly reliable under policy, and their presence confirms notability.

Other objections collapse on closer inspection. The article does not “lean on” The Debrief; even if that site were excluded entirely, mainstream and academic coverage remains plentiful. Claims of promotionalism ignore that the text is fully attributed, neutral in tone, and free of puffery, whereas the deletion rationale itself applies pejorative language (“UFO club,” “enthusiast”) that violates WP:NPOV. Finally, WP:ILIKE/IDONTLIKE dictates that editorial sentiment is irrelevant; Wikipedia retains topics documented in reliable, independent sources regardless of their perceived seriousness or controversy. Because those sources exist in abundance and the article can be readily refined to reflect them, deletion would contradict core inclusion policy rather than enforce it.

Applying the consistency principle embedded in WP:N, Wikipedia should judge the Sol Foundation by the same sourcing threshold that has long sustained analogous entries. Earlier UAP bodies such as NICAP and CUFOS were retained once magazines like Time and major newspapers profiled them; the Sol Foundation already matches or exceeds that level of coverage, with features in Newsweek, Hartford Courant, PopMatters, and a peer-reviewed Wiley journal. Comparable new ventures—Harvard’s 2021 Galileo Project, assorted think tanks, and niche NGOs—have been kept on the strength of a handful of reliable articles in mainstream or specialist press; the Foundation’s two well-reported symposia, plus national and international reportage, clearly meet that same bar. To impose a higher standard merely because the topic involves UAPs would contradict WP:ORG’s call for uniform treatment across subject areas.

Wikipedia also favors improvement over excision. During the AfD one editor added additional mainstream and academic citations, after which the article unambiguously satisfied WP:GNG; policy dictates that once independent coverage is shown, remaining disputes—e.g., over one Debrief citation—are resolved by normal editing, not deletion. Finally, WP:V reminds us that inclusion rests on what reliable sources publish, irrespective of whether the work is speculative or controversial. The encyclopedia already hosts entries on paranormal institutes, alternative-medicine centers, and To The Stars Academy precisely because significant independent coverage exists. The Sol Foundation now enjoys a comparable evidentiary record; deleting it would depart from established precedent and apply an inconsistent, topic-specific gate that policy expressly rejects.

Strong keep. The Sol Foundation unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG: mainstream and academic outlets—Hartford Courant, Newsweek, PopMatters, Wiley’s International Social Science Journal, among others—provide non-trivial, independent, and reliable coverage. All statements in the article are verifiable (WP:V) from these high-quality sources (WP:RS), and the text is written in an even-handed, fact-based style that satisfies WP:NPOV.

Objections centered on alleged source weakness or routine mention collapse once the full reference set is examined; a handful of marginal citations cannot override the weight of substantial reporting. Policy favors improvement over deletion, and the article has already been fortified with additional reliable citations during the AfD. Removing it would excise well-sourced information and create a gap in Wikipedia’s treatment of contemporary UAP research, contrary to the project’s mandate to document notable topics neutrally and comprehensively. TruthBeGood (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Turkey football rivalry

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

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

Based on the comment by RedPatch, I think merging to Greece–Turkey relations may be a viable alternative. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Greece, and Turkey. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As far as I know, it's a real and very strong rivalry. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the sourcing showing this? Giant Snowman 04:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like all Grecian/Turkish relations (and as they share a border), this is definitely a notable rivalry with two nations with very expressive soccer histories that go well beyond the pitch, and it's likely there are few matches between them solely because of said history and organizers not wanting violence to occur. Definitely not a deletion candidate. There was also content removal before the nomination, which is never a good look. Nathannah • 📮 23:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning Delete - based on the comments, seems more like a "nation issue" than a "football rivalry". Many countries have national disputes, where it results in tensions in sporting matches, but that doesn't mean it's a "sporting rivalry" it's other factors. This probably would be better as a subsection called "Greece and Turkey in Sports" in the Greece–Turkey relations article, rather than a separate article. All the sources either relate to 1) either political issues between the two nations or 2) individual articles about one country with zero mention of the other (ie. Greece winning Euro 2004). Nothing about the two countries in sports versus each other. RedPatch (talk) 10:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RedPatch. There's obviously a very strong national rivalry that undoubtedly spills over into football matches between the nations, but the football rivalry itself doesn't have the sourcing needed to support its own article. Wburrow (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs an overhaul, but there is a strong rivalry between the two countries. This rivalry is more evident at club football, [56], [57], you get moments of problems in the national team, but not so strong. [58], [59], but between Greece and Turkey in sports. Yes there is a rivalry. I don't think the nomination understands the rivalry between these two countries. Govvy (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There is also a very strong rivalry between the countries in basketball. An alternative might be to move to a Greece–Turkey sports rivalry article where both sports could be covered. Svartner (talk) 14:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy and Top Ten Lists the rivalry at 8 and Bleacherreport list it top 50 rivalries.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Top Tens "list" is an open vote, so there is no objectivity to it whatsoever and it is, at the very least, adjacent to user-generated content. As noted in the Bleacher Report piece, Another writer here at Bleacher Report recently ranked his top 50 rivalries is World Football, and I must say, I was left somewhat unsatisfied. So I've compiled my own list of the 50 best football rivalries. Therefore, it is one person's opinion in reply to another person's opinion. Again, completely subjective. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher Report is unreliable; see WP:RSN community discussions 1, 2, 3, 4. Left guide (talk) 07:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is actually no football rivalry. Matches against Turkey are treated like any other match. Only nationalist circles find rivalry. The Greek Wikipedia does not even have a page on "rivalry", which I consider indicative of the minimal importance of the issue for the two countries. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaning Delete as per majority of comments above, there have been few international meetings and little to no evidence provided of an enduring rivalry specific to international football. As has also been suggested above, there is a wider situation of rivalry between the nations in other sports, particularly in basketball but also volleyball and water polo as well as club football, and the fact that several Greek clubs, most significantly PAOK and AEK (the 'K' standing for Konstantinoupόleos i.e Istanbul), have their origins in Greek refugee communities expelled from Turkey – there is maybe also something the other way, can't remember – all of which could feasibly contribute to a Greece–Turkey sports rivalry article, but again this would need to be evidenced with specific sourcing. Crowsus (talk) 08:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Delete I agree with others on the use of a Greece–Turkey sports rivalry article in the future, even potentially merging/redirecting there, but for football, the sources above provide very, very little to significantly cover the topic, and it is mostly based on the clubs not the national teams. Conyo14 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. Barr Theo (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as NC, relisting per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 29
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and very firmly so. The sourcing does not support this as an actual rivalry. There is not a single source in the article which currently details the rivalry - it's all about the countries history with each other or the successes of their national teams. The linked articles in the AfD are of no help. The Sportsgazette article talks about violence in Greece and Turkey, not about the rivalry between these clubs. The New York Times just outlines some fan violence in a Fenerbahce match in Greece, not about a national team rivalry; the Guardian just outlines the booing through a moment of silence, not an actual sporting rivalry. And the two listicles - one is a fan vote, the other is user-generated and is one of the weirdest ranking articles I've ever seen. There is absolutely no sourcing showing that there is a rivalry between these two national teams. SportingFlyer T·C 09:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don’t really think it fits WP:noatability Jabba550 (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge to Greece–Turkey relations. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV covering this football series as a "rivalry." All of the references appear to be WP:ROUTINE coverage. I oppose a merge because the bilateral relations pages discuss the relations between two nations, not a history of results between their sports teams. Frank Anchor 12:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Dalfour France

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

lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Xrimonciam: What WP:BEFORE did you conduct prior to nomination? i know you're a dog 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warren James Jewellers

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

Should be deleted because it lacks independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in support of retaining this article here. Ran a WP:BEFORE but hope of finding WP:SIGCOV effectively truncated by the abysmal search result. Patre23 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

!vote From an initial review, there appears to be a lack of secondary sources. However, the company is - in my view - notable. It is described in 2006 as "the United Kingdom's largest independent jeweller" in a Nominet ruling. It is described as a national jewellery retailer in a more recent 2023 legal judgment. It's last statutory accounts show a revenue of over £100m per year. I will attempt to complete a more thorough review of secondary sources to support notability. Salicia7 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirzakhania

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

Not an accepted genus, apparently, per IRMNG (link). This is a Junior subjective synonym of the subgenus Heodes, within the genus Lycaena. (source) I guess a redirect to Lycaena could work, but I'm a bit unsure on that as this isn't a synonym of that, it's a synonym of a subgenus within it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lycaena. As long as the subgenus is covered in that article, that would seem to be the suitable target. Not sure about precedents but the practice seems sensible. We certainly want it to redirect somewhere.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble (DVD based games console)

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Very limited coverage provided. The article is mostly sourced by user-generated Marketplace product listings, which is far from a reliable source. The LocoLabs sources are primary references by the manufacturer. The Marketing Week source seems to be an affiliate announcement about Bandai's marketing campaign for the product. There just unfortunately isn't enough evidence of any mainstream coverage to suggest that this is a product notable enough to merit encyclopedic treatment. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Valimont

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Candidate for office but has never been elected. Not notable outside of the campaign. Zinderboff (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Zinderboff (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she appears to be moving towards WP:GNG for consistently running and losing to opponents. If she continues in this trajectory she will be known as a regular runner and will be of interest to her constituents. Patre23 (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election as her last election. Coverage does not cover her at all really outside of her political runs Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election. Lacks suffucient coverage outside of her campaigns. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election. There are five non-election sources. Of those sources, one is not independent of the subject (obituary published about a family member), two relate to her son's death from the same local publication, and two relate to activism related to state legislation. The Pensacola News Journal story quotes Valimont, but is mostly about Moms Demand Action. The other notes her attendance at a meeting, but does not cover her as a subject. The election sources themselves would not allow her to meet GNG. A number are primary sources (i.e. campaign finance reports and results) unrelated to the subject and the others are run of the mill election coverage.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question I thought there was a two month waiting period before opening another AfD when previous discussion was closed with no consensus. It’s only been one month since the last one for this page. Is “two months” policy or just a suggestion? Nnev66 (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election. This is an appropriate outcome for canndidates to the US House that were not elected (see WP:OUTCOMES). Also some of the verfiable material could be added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Guha (anthropologist)

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

The article is filled with Self published links, Nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and West Bengal. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then Protect - I consider that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - in the Selected publications section, the references are to reviews of his books. It is certainly true that the article is frequently subject to less well sourced additions from IP editors - who probably have a conflict of interest - which are reverted from time to time. I won't revert them during this AfD (and some of the additions may merit a place in Selected publications) but will once it's finished. If the article is kept, I suggest that it be placed under extended confirmed protection to help prevent these kind of additions from happening. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murtaza Hussain

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

Clearly fails WP:NATHLETE. Article created in 2007, no more WP:SIGCOV in 20 years that points to notability. Longhornsg (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Longhornsg (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players. Vestrian24Bio 11:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Vestrian24Bio, do you not think the sources added since the nomination demonstrate notability? We have a whole page dedicated to Hussain by the North-West Evening Mail (clearly SIGCOV). He represented Pakistan "A", so at some point was considered amongst the top 20 cricketers in Pakistan's most popular sport, and played for close to two decades. There will be sources in Urdu for someone who knows where/how to look. Jevansen (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage which isn't just one whole newspaper page.

WP:NCRIC - "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level or in the lower levels of international cricket", WP:OFFCRIC - only Pentangular Trophy in his time period in Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 12:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: "at some point was considered amongst the top 20 cricketers in Pakistan's most popular sport" - any source for that claim?? Vestrian24Bio 12:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: The WP:OFFCRIC guideline you linked lists the Pentangular Trophy under tournaments that have "first-class cricket status that the Cricket WikiProject deems (players to be) notable enough to presume coverage". He played in this tournament during the 1990s.[60]. In addition, Hussain played for Surrey in Div 1 of the 2007 County Championship, undisputedly the highest level. The basis of the top 20 claim is maths ... Pakistan "A" being the second eleven ... so top 22 by definition (I rounded down). Jevansen (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jevansen: not much of this is on the article, other than the infobox and lead, there's literally nothing on the article.

And so, the last part of your statement is WP:SYNTH as you've agreed yourself... Vestrian24Bio 15:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be in the article. It needs to be in the sources. We do mention he competed for Surrey (all their players satisfy WP:OFFCRIC) and this is backed by citations. I merely mentioned the "top 20" to highlight the likelihood of Urdu sources existing. This hasn't been inserted in the article, which is when WP:SYNTH would apply. Jevansen (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the full-page story found by Jevansen is clear SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC with sources added since nomination. Would welcome contribution of any Urdu speaker re further sourcing. Jevansen (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the fact that we're discussing whether a cricketer with over 250 major cricketing appearances - let alone in English county cricket - is notable is genuinely saddening. Bobo . 00:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed but sadly there seems to be a small element of editors who, rather than seeking to add to the knowledge provided in this online encyclopedia, are putting all their effort into trying to delete as much as they possibly can from it. They know all the acronyms as will as the miniature of rules and loopholes and commonsense has gone out the window. Shrug02 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Syrian regions

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

Although these do not automatically merit deletion, the article contains huge chunks of unsourced content and info not supported by the cited reference, which I will get to the details later. More importantly, the major problem with this article is that the concept is a WP:SYNTH. As far as I can see, none of the sources mention or delineate this specific "region". "Northern Syrian regions" is not a phrase precedented in reliable sources that specifically refers to these areas of Turkey. "Northern Syria", even within the context of Ottoman history, refers to a far broader region that contains much of modern Syria or Ottoman Syria, including Aleppo. I initially thought at best, this article could be moved to "Turkish Syria", which is mostly found in over a century-old sources but still also refers to Aleppo: [61] The idea I get from this article is that it describes the areas that would be under the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon according to the Treaty of Sèvres, which did not come into full effect. If this were the case, that would be a content fork, too. Now, returning to WP:VERIFY issues, the list of failed verifications is long, but here are a couple of examples: Nowhere does a traveler mention in 1910 here Mardin Province is (or would be) ...% Arab in 1927 or in any year. Nowhere in Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab does Leslie P. Peirce mention the 1927, or say 1550, composition of the city of Aintab. Cited references include WP:SELFPUBLISHED maps such as this which ironically also fails verification. As of this revision, about 15-18 paragraphs do not include a single reference, not that the references necessarily support the content. Overall, assuming this weren't a content fork, it would have to be moved to a verifiable name that at least was utilized by 2-3 sources. Then, a complete cleanup would have to be done, and each bit would have to be verified with the cited reference. The insurmountable amount of issues crosses the region of WP:TNT, which is only assuming there is a way to solve the issues of WP:N, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and WP:SYNTH. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. There is no coherent underlying subject and too many problems to fix and redistribute the content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to move it to the draftspace where I can learn more on wikipedia's style and fix it? DaSeashell (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been longer than 7 months since this article's creation. Per WP:DRAFTNO and previous RFC, articles older than 3 months should not be draftified without clear consensus. It is highly unlikely this entry would be improved after draftification, because the issue is not just the lack of references, but the concept itself is a synthesis of numerous sources and is not something that is covered in-depth and described clearly by any of the sources here or elsewhere on the Internet. You are welcome to experiment through your sandbox, in this case, for your prospective well-sourced additions with reliable sources to other articles. On the other hand, this entry is simply untenable. Wikipedia is not some blog site, where you can coin and synthesize new terms and info. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table of polyhedron dihedral angles

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

Even though many sources support the angle of each polyhedron, I still have no clue what's the point of its existence. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t delete this article

This article is useful 2406:B400:71:B341:E821:9E94:FF91:A0F2 (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep by default, because this is a bit of a non-debate. The fact that one editor doesn't see the point of an article isn't really grounds for deletion, and the fact that someone else finds it possibly useful isn't strong grounds to keep. My feeling is that the list is apparently correct and sourced, and it's quite possible that some school kid somewhere is making polyhedron models and excited by their angles, so for the sake of them, I'm fine about the table existing in their favourite encyclopedia. Elemimele (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele If that's the case, I could barely remodel the list anytime soon. What class of polyhedra should be included in the article? And why Platonic solids, star solids, and uniform solids are included only? Catalan solids has its own list alongside with dihedral angle. Archimedean solids? Johnson solids? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dedhert.Jr valid point: some of the main articles already tabulate dihedral angles, but others don't. The Catalan solids article does it super-clearly. I think I'd have to downgrade my weak keep to a very weak keep on the grounds that the main articles often do have the data. This is one of those deletions where I don't feel strongly enough to argue, particularly as you have much greater knowledge of the field than I. I'm a bit inclusionist when it comes to information, and don't mind lists that duplicate-and-collate numbers also available in other lists/articles, but others may feel differently. Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBD Television

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

No refs on the page for many years. Doesn't seem to have notability outside of DCD Media JMWt (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOPAGE. Don't see enough sources to base a standalone article on. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DCD Media as it has no notability to be a stand alone article. Patre23 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Periodization of the Shang dynasty

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

Okay, could be off the mark here, but I am not seeing any in-depth coverage regarding this concept. Seems to be a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As discussed previously in places like Talk:Late Shang, there are different ways used by academic sources to periodize the Shang dynasty, which is itself a helpful and interesting topic. For example, many academic sources divide the main Shang period into 2 phases (Early Shang and Late Shang), whereas various other sources divide it into 3 phases (Early Shang, Middle Shang, and Late Shang), etc. Also, the article Late Shang is currently about “Late Shang” within a certain periodization method (starting from Wu Ding), but there are also different ways of understanding the term (e.g. starting from Pan Geng). The periodization of the Shang dynasty is often associated with Shang archaeology, which is itself an important topic. In any case, this general article (Periodization of the Shang dynasty) is used to explain such things as done in academic sources, although of course the article can be further expanded for even more detailed coverage. —Wengier (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is not OR or SYNTH. It is an important topic of scholarly discussion and a set of real archeological terms. See, for instance, this footnote and the many comments in WP:Featured article candidates/Guandimiao/archive1 around the use of "Anyang", "Erligang culture", "Late Shang" etc., like right under here. In fact, based on that discussion this article is evidently not complete. (Not sure if it would be appropriate to ping editors involved in that FAC for comment.) Toadspike [Talk] 12:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I realize we could use some sources. I did a Google Scholar search for '"late shang" definition'. The first three results discuss this topic in great depth: [62][63][64] Toadspike [Talk] 19:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Joel Sked

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

Does not meet GNG, and does not meet WP:ANYBIO Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A View from the Terrace as possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 21:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A View from the Terrace per WP:ATD. All sources gave passing mentions which is far from the borderline of WP:ANYBIO. Patre23 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Durig

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

Doesn't seem to have enough sources with SIGCOV. I found this with sparse coverage, this with moderate coverage, and this. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, United States of America, and Kansas. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is a ton of coverage in the Kansas City Star, see [65], [66], [67]. I think that's one element of an ideal three to establish GNG. Will see if I can find dig up more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Daily News also published a two page spread upon her 1,000th performance. I'm still probably at a Weak delete, but maybe someone else will find a bit more coverage. Maybve there is a world where this could be redirected to the musical's article, but her name isn't really there in any substantial way right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Identified coverage meets WP:N policy requirements - significant coverage in multiple (two) reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NYDN is an interview, so we really only have one independent, reliable source so far, imv. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gormogon (Bones)

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

A minor character in the Bones TV series. BEFORE turns up only reviews of episodes he featured in and a few scarce interviews; there is nothing actually discussing the impact, reception, or anything of this character. I'd suggest an AtD redirect to List of Bones characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Crime. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Current entry is just plot summary (WP:FANCRUFT that shows zero-level WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Without significant coverage about its reception, this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NOT. Redirect makes sense as an WP:ATD, where it can be mentioned in context of more appropriate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Boudreaux

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

I've nominated this individual's nonprofit organization for AfD as well, however I think that the subject of this article itself is not notable either. I've searched the subject up - and it seems that a majority of the sources available are interviews (primary sources) or instances of WP:BLP1E (for their work with the Miracle Foundation, the nonprofit they started). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4. Other profiles that I'm not as sure about: [68], [69]. These all offer significant coverage in reliable sources. A career is not one event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources tell the same "origin story" so we are lacking enough beyond that to for this to be about her. I understand why NOM is calling this blp1e, although I don't think that's quite correct. It's as if the article for Zuckerberg only had sources that talked about the invention of FB in his college dorm, and nothing after that. The potentially significant UBS source fails - the link is to a general page and I find nothing under her name. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with WP:BLP1E, and it seems that Caroline Boudreaux meets WP:NBASIC. What guideline are you referring to when you say the sources tell the same origin story? Hmr (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASIC asks for "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" ... I read that as saying that if they all have the same content, they are not intellectually independent. Also, none that I can find give much basic biographical information, nor information that covers the years that follow the founding of the organization (except two talks that aren't usable sources). I don't see that there is enough info for a stand-alone article. It may be possible to cover her in the article on the organization, if it meets basic. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources provided by Eddie891 give WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable sources from different years (2007, 2015-16). They provide biographical details about the subject as well as information of the founding of the Miracle Foundation as well as details of how she advocates for orphans internationally. Nnev66 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Lamona. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lamona as all the sources tell the same origin story but little else. That happened in 2000, so there should have been other coverage over the past 25 years. This source shouldn't even be in the article now, as it is mislabeled (it is written by subject, not by someone else) and it is a Forbes contributor site which is not considered WP:RS. All but one of the sources listed by Eddie891 are profiles which are insufficient to establish WP:GNG.--FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you elaborate how profiles ‘are insufficient to establish GNG’? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eddie891, in my opinion those profiles are puff pieces and hardly good examples of in-depth journalism. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree the coverage of the subject is from a human interest vantage and there are flourishes in the language (i.e. not Woodward and Bernstein journalism), I don't see why these articles are "puff pieces" that don't count towards WP:BASIC. Also, where does it say in Wikipedia policy that coverage in city newspapers where the subject lives doesn't count towards notability? There is quite a bit of information in these articles about the subject herself as well as her organization that evolves over time. There is also coverage that lists the subject's awards in Dataquest, 2019 and Decclan Chronicle, 2018, which include the UBS Global Visionary award and United Nations Humanitarian Award which the subject received in 2017. PS. I removed the Forbes ref from the article as it didn't add anything. Nnev66 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with the gist of what Nnev is saying here- these clearly profiles in well-regarded, prominent newspapers over a range of years (exactly what we look for when establishing notability), and from them it would totally be possible to write a substantive article (if not the longest OOT). not too much else matters. I don't think it fair to dismiss them out of hand as puffery, even if they aren't the best possible. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raina railway station

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

Can't find anything about this railway station in Pakistan. I did find an article about a railway station that happens to be called "Raina", but it is located in West Bengal (India), not Pakistan.

And I'm not entirely sure if that article is even reliable.

(Edit: another article about the Indian railway station, still nothing for the Pakistan one though) ApexParagon (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything to satisfy WP:V. Jumpytoo Talk 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The archived Pakistan Railways site at https://web.archive.org/web/20140224124331/http://pakrail.com/ has a list of stations in alphabetical order, and when you scroll down to Raina, you see "Raina (Closed)". Google Maps shows a town or village named Raina in Pakistan. There is no Raina, Pakistan article, but perhaps there is in the Urdu Wikipedia. I don't see a railway line there, though. Perhaps there was a railway line and station there once. Perhaps there is more than one way to transliterate the Urdu name. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Downey Corner, Indiana

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

A corner with no documentation besides GNIS and appearing in a list of places in a history of the county. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a T-intersection in the middle of nowhere. The name does appear on USGS maps going back at least to 1959, but none of those show anything more than a farmhouse at the site. Clearly not a community, fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy House

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

Alright -- the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and notability for companies because of lack of WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS. There are lots of sources, but they are either WP:ROUTINE, very old announcements of the opening, or not independent. This article has serious NPOV issues to go along with that -- seems like advertising and promotion. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Washington. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Båntjern

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

This is an article about a mountain lake in Norway -- fails notability guidelines, by virtue of being a random lake in Norway. There are 300,000 lakes in Norway. Besides that, most of the article fails WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:NOTGUIDE; it talks about the amenities of the lake, like hikes, grills, and a nearby campsite. Serious NPOV issues, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Needless to say no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Norway. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it's not a "mountain lake" at all, it's located on the city outskirts and used as a hiking spot/campgrounds. "Needless to say" doesn't seem to hold water (!), why would that be needless to say? Where did you do your WP:BEFORE that is not Google? Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say was poor semantics, I apologize. I did my WP:BEFORE on JSTOR, Gbooks, GScholar, and norwegian google. I said it was a "mountain lake" because the article classifies it as a "tarn," which is a mountain lake. There some things, like "woah guys this lake exists," but imo it still fails under WP:NOTGUIDE-- I could be wrong, and if so, please let me know w/sources etc. This article is also an orphaned article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Bilili Bangura

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

This guy doesn't meet the notability requirements. Article is an orphan. He plays for a division four team in Sweden -- an amateur league -- Wikipedia doesn't cover amateur football per guidelines. Finally, one of the sources seems to be a blog, and the other two aren't reliable sources. Not WP:SUSTAINED, fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and has serious NPOV issues. Also not notable bc it's only of interest to local people. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, South Africa, and Sweden. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a little confused by this one, is it a WP:HOAX ? Govvy (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is a real footballer, he appeared in National-football-teams. But I can't find source for most of the information in the article like "he joined his brother Abdul Bangura" and "one of the best midfielder for Härnösands FF" KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah -- per @KhoaNguyen1, it's not that he doesn't exist -- he just plays for a tier 4 swedish team (amateur level,) and doesn't have sigcov or reliable sources. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, that footballer has only played 2 professional matches KhoaNguyen1 (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many red flags for me, doesn't seem to pass GNG for me either. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find many RSes that can be used to bolster his notability. If the assertion is true that he has only played 2 professional matches, I fail to see how this reaches the levels of notability required for an athlete. WP:TOOSOON likely applies here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bagroiser

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

This looks like a hoax. Completely unsourced, and searches on gbooks, JSTOR, advanced google search, news, and more bring up literally nothing. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and North Macedonia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It hits in an Iranian dictionary for some reason [70] I suppose that's close-ish to North Macedonia, but not quite... I'm not sure what this unsourced stub is. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Won't claim to know every tradition associated with Marian feasts, but I've never seen this one before. A bit of Googling coaxed their lazy AI to claim that it had something to do with the Assumption, but that's absolutely nothing that aligns with this subject online. The only other reference I could find to this was the Wikidata item, created in 2014, so after the article. I don't know if it's a hoax, but it's definitely not notable based on English-language sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given it's a non-English speaking festival I'm thinking there may be alternative spellings. The closest I can find is "Успение на Пресвета Богородица, Uspenie na Presveta Bogorodica" also celebrated in August and celebrating Mary (source:Public holidays in North Macedonia) - which is covered by Assumption of Mary page. SallyRenee (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G12. Bbb23 (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MarkMeets Magazine

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

Fails WP:NORG -- lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, Popular culture, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite a few WP:V issues with about half of the article unsourced. Lacks sufficient notability -- existing sources include a Wiki Fandom link and a TrustPilot 404, failing WP:RS and WP:INWA, among others. Tvfunhouse (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of proposing deletion out of unfamiliarity with the topic, editors should engage in constructive editing. Improving the article through collaboration and research aligns far more closely with Wikipedia’s core values than erasing valuable content.

This proposed deletion is unwarranted and reflects a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. The article concerns a notable and long-standing media brand that has been reviewed and approved by both UK and US Wikipedia moderators. The deletion rationale appears overzealous and poorly researched, especially given that similar media outlets (e.g., Popjustice, The Line of Best Fit, Far Out) maintain pages with fewer documented milestones. Instead of proposing deletion, improvements should be encouraged. Editors unfamiliar with the digital media and entertainment news niche should refrain from making sweeping judgments without due diligence. SmGLis (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per my comment below. ~~Delete~~: No sustained, significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP. This article - very promotional in tone - was moved here after being roundly rejected at AfC - see Draft:MarkMeets. I suspect that it was created by an editor with a conflict of interest - the sentence The Drum publication included MarkMeets in “The Entertainment Power 100 2022” list and ranked us 12th globally on their 2023 Entertainment Power List. is taken directly from https://markmeets.com/media-kit/, violating copyright. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - on further investigation, the whole article appears to be a closely worded copyright violation of https://markmeets.com/posts/markmeets-your-trusted-source-for-entertainment-news-wikipedia/ and could therefore be deleted under WP:G12. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing approaching RS here. First versions were revision deleted for use of deprecated sources. As one of several involved contributors, User:SmGLis has no standing to instruct actual wikipedians. BusterD (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Austral Launch Vehicle

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

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk)

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel from the Winter's End Chronicles

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

Lots of problems: first, subject fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:RS. One of the sources is "Nerdist," an unreliable source. Even if it was reliable, it's a piece about a kickstarter. The other source is a defunct self published site, and the last source is a niche magazine. It's also a human interest story. On to the most important part; the creator of the page seems to be affiliated with the subject, with the username matching the title and a COI message on the talk page. Fails WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, and finally, nobody wants to hear about your garage band. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Entertainment, Technology, Internet, and United States of America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Exploration

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

This article does not meet the general notability guideline, and does not meet the notability guidelines for companies. The claim to notability surrounds its involvement with human rights abuses, ending in deaths, in Indonesia. This breaks policy because just because the company was the subject of a (probably not) notable event, does not make it notable. No inherited notability. Next, This company does not have WP:SIGCOV that is WP:SUSTAINED, and the sources don't seem to be WP:RS, but I haven't done a deep dive. No other coverage besides this stuff, where it isn't the main story. This company isn't notable. More, the sources are also from 2011, pretty out of date. We gotta delete this AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Indonesia, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://archives1.sundayobserver.lk/search/node/nadeeka%20guruge

[2] ttps://sltc.ac.lk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Music-Brochure-2023-OCT-10.pdf

[3] ttps://www.ugc.ac.lk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=37&lang=en

[1]

[2]

[3]