Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

24 May 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 23	May 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Hellen Lukoma

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are gossip column style interviews and announcements. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN with two non notable bands. More generally a WP:GNG / WP:BIO failure. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Music, Television, Fashion, and Uganda. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 22:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fnaire

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

Questionable amount of notability and sigcov to deserve its own article. YouTube and Genius "sources" do not count. MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Morocco. MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Night safari

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

This is essentially a WP:DICDEF with an arbitrary list of examples. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Emirate of Rafah

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

The community has expressed opposition to the misleading use of the country infobox at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 191#RfC: micronation infoboxes. This spirit of this argument against misleading presentation extends to the wider article in this case. The core of this article is an unattributed WP:CFORK of Jund Ansar Allah. Much of the content is taken from there, and its conversion to imitate a country article is misleading to readers as per the RfC. The article presents a one day standoff in a mosque as a country. Development of the shifted material has furthered this. For example, that the entity "Collapsed" is stated in the lead and reinforced by the body, but there was never an entity that existed to collapse. Categories such as Category:Former countries in Asia are entirely inappropriate. The sources in the article, which mostly come from the Jund Ansar Allah article, are about Jund Ansar Allah and the Battle of Rafah (2009). They do not support the claim there was actually an independent state for one day. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Palestine. CMD (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Hi CMD. I've edited this article before, and IIRC, there were sources or other information on this article that I read that verified that JAA did declare a separate emirate, but obviously they're not on the page anymore if they were. I need to do some more research to come to a definitive conclusion, but I think given that the Battle of Rafah and the Emirate cannot really be contextually divorced from one another, it makes sense to merge and redirect this article into the battle of Rafah article. This is just speculating, but I think all three could possibly be merged into the JAA article. I need to do more research overall though. Castroonthemoon (talk) 19:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clear the JAA "declared" a separate emirate; that's a different claim than supposing that this declaration actually created an emirate. I have done a bit of looking into whether the Battle of Rafah (2009) could be merged, and it probably could, but it does not have the same contextual issues as this article. CMD (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: would your argument also apply to the Democratic Republic of Yemen article, which is about only a declared entity that wasn't really established? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible similar arguments might figure out into exactly how to present the information, but it seems to be very dissimilar situation to the article at hand. CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into battle of Rafah 2009 JaxsonR (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i mean JAA JaxsonR (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah, as this is a blip in JAA's history that warrants coverage on the militant organization's page, no more. Longhornsg (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You think the Battle of Rafah (2009) article could be merged as well? Castroonthemoon (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no JaxsonR (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jund Ansar Allah per @Longhornsg's reasoning Evaporation123 (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Merge target articles suggested and we need to settle on one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAVDACH

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

A highly promotional article about a pressure group that seems to fail WP:NORG. Having nuked some of the spam in the article, I tried to look for sources, and found none (the group seems to be known as "UAV DACH", and even searching for that got me nothing usable as a source, let alone something that would contribute towards NORG). That said, it is possible that I may be unable to access or find local sources in a search because of my location, and I think bringing it to AfD would also bring this article to the wider community's attention and increase the possibility of sources being found, if they exist. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Aviation, and Germany. Java Hurricane 18:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an EN Version of the German Wiki post that provides all sources. Boatschafter (talk) 07:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at that, and most of the references cited there are either to UAV DACH's own website (i.e. not WP:INDEPENDENT of the source), or to registries or other places mentioning the group without providing in-depth significant coverage of the company, or at best some run-of-the-mill routine coverage about the group's elections. Java Hurricane 08:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James C. Ford Memorial Bridge

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

very short article which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO; only sources are a document on the bridge's renaming and a list of local bridges. harrz ^talk 19:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep While "very short article which does not meet WP:GNG" the bridge appears to be significant and with sources that are likely out there, it would satisfy Wikipedia:NGEO.19:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)~ (comment by User:Djflem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coral Club

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

I removed a bunch of clearly promotional PR fluff, and really this article fails to pass any WP:GNG requirements for a company. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1603)

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

I am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic about a battle of Tashkent in 1603. It may have happened but it does not seem to have been notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this one has an English language source in the article, although the battle, an attempt to conquer Tashkent, reportedly occurred in Ikriyar. But this leaves me a little puzzled about the wording of the nomination. Jahaza (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it means that when I did a search, the English language source did not come up so I can’t verify that it is indeed a source for the material claimed. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What did you search? I was able to read it on Google Books[1], it's available from the publisher's web site, and WorldCat lists more than 300 libraries as holding it. Jahaza (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks unfortunately the relevant pages don’t show in my Google books view so I can’t verify it. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this comes up on the odd occasion, where refs (and even their articles) are challenged because someone wasn't able to see/read the source to "verify" it, whether it's a web article behind a paywall, or a web page with some other form of restricted access, or physical books and other media, that "can't be found at local library or for sale online", etc., etc. I don't recall that itself being a reason to remove a ref, and delete an article, (I could be wrong). I don't believe it should be a reason either, whether it's having faith in the fellow editor that added it, or just the fact that there are numerous articles on WP, with even more refs that can't be easily and readily accessed, yet there hasn't been (to my knowledeg) any widespread efforts to initiate any massive deletion campaigns because of this. (jmho) Perhaps there's a guideline that covers this, but none have been cited here as of yet. - \\'cԼF 10:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunately in recent times some editors have taken to creating many articles about battles which are completely fictitious. These articles are decorated with pseudo-references to offline books in other languages. Other editors like to create battle articles based on a couple of passing mentions. If I look for sources and can’t find anything that supports what the article says then AfD is the place for it. Mccapra (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize in advance if there are any mistakes in my words — I am writing through a translator. All the articles I have written are based on real books, but the problem is that some of them are not available in open access. So how do I have them? — I bought them. And as for the fact that they are hard to find online — the answer is simple: the history of Kazakhstan develops more slowly than that of other countries.

I write articles, and I know that the way I cited the sources is poorly done — I will try to fix that as soon as I have the time. Онеми (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The discussion is helpful but we need some opinions about a preferred outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tashkent (1607)

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

I am unable to find any sources in Latin or Cyrillic script about a battle of Tashkent in 1607. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment possibly not a complete hoax? See[2] Jahaza (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the sources that are already present in the article? Do they exist or are they hallucinated references? (Worldcat doesn't recognise the two ISBNs).Nigel Ish (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They may exist but I couldn’t find them. Mccapra (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the first book, Казахское ханство очерки внешнеполитической истории is available here[3] Jahaza (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that source says “In violation of the treaty with the Kazakh khans, they tried to return Tashkent, which had been in the hands of the Kazakhs since the end of the 16th century, under their rule. Already in the fall of 1603, according to the "Bahr al-Asrar" by Mahmud ibn Wali, Baki-Muhammed Khan attempted to capture the city, but was defeated by the troops of the Kazakh ruler of Tashkent Keldi-Mu-hammed Khan.” That’s all it says about the 1603 battle. About the 1607 battle it says “In 1607, a vassal of Vali-Muhammad Khan named Muhammadmed-Baki-biy Kalmak managed to capture Tashkent. However, he was not allowed to rule the city for a long time, he was driven out of the city by the troops of Yesim Khan.” That’s it. So we know there was fighting in Tashkent but there is nothing that indicates this was a notable battle. Mccapra (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem like significant coverage.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Krishna College of Engineering

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

There is nothing to salvage here. It uses only primary sources. Whatever sources are available online are mere trivial mention. So this cannot be merged as well. I would suggest a deletion or a redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to LNCT University - seems the institution is actually LNCT (Bhopal) Indore Campus per [4], as the address matches there, and primary links on LKCE article are actually with LNCT. No apparent indication that this is (directly) connected to Dr. A. P. J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Lucknow Dl2000 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LNCT does not seem notable either. I have nominated it for an AfD as well Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete there doesnt seem to be SIGCOV. --hroest 19:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirect target articles are suggested, one of which is also at AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Murali

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Only one film not multiple, no other films in production like the cast of The Archies. Being able to write about his family doesn't give an excuse for an article, as that information is in his brother Atharvaa and father Murali (Tamil actor)'s pages. All of this information about his career is covered in Nesippaya. DareshMohan (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's too soon, does not meet WP:NACTOR, and should be redirect to Nesippaya. Pasados (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance High School (Kenya)

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

Highschools are no longer considered to be inherently notable. This one fails WP:NSCHOOL. Referencing is abysmal. This is a WP:ROTM high school. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tunde Olaniran

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

Fails WP:SINGER. Subject does not meet the criteria for notability in music as they do not have any charting music releases, notable award wins/nominations, music releases on a major record label, etc. Sackkid (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIS Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships 2027

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

Might just be WP:TOOSOON for an event two years out. More sourcing would have to be found to warrant a standalone article right now. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Austria. JTtheOG (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's the next of this tournament, it is not a yearly a tournament, and the article will be needed eventually Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anshuman Magazine

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

Mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources (mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA) is all I can find. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolu Okupe

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no information or sources stating of this person is either a model or activist. The article does not mention any fashion shows or brands that he participated in, nor does it mention any activism that he has done. He is only notable as a son of a former presidential aide which makes this WP:INVALIDBIO. This person is not notable. Sackkid (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chokeslem

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

Terribly-sourced AI-generated article with no evidence of meeting WP:NSONG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purnima sharma

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, only one significant role (but not a major) in Gulabo Sitabo. Majority of references are from Wikipedia itself and fails per WP:NOTSOURCE. Created this here by the artist themselves as per claims at User:Purnimabna and here for promotion only. Agent 007 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping this article as Purnima Sharma is a notable individual with significant contributions in her field. Her work has been covered by several reliable sources, which establish her notability.

Purnima Sharma’s achievements have been highlighted in trusted publications such as [source 1], [source 2], which provide detailed coverage of her career and accomplishments. These sources demonstrate her relevance and importance in her field, aligning with Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Therefore, I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion and should not be deleted. Purnimabna (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Akash and I manage her social media, I created an account in the name of Purnima because I am new. I thought that the account should be in the name of the person whose page will be created. Purnimabna (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

East Haven, Indiana

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

As far as I can determine this is the same as the Richmond State Hospital, which I also find referred to as "East Haven Hospital". It is a historic and still active asylum started in the 1870s; the main building is a classic of period architecture. It also appears as a rail spot because there was a branch which presumably supplied the heating facilities with coal. The one thing I see no sign of is anyone thinking of this as a town in its own right: though it appears to sit outside the city limits, it was always associated with Richmond, and I find no reference to a predecessor town. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bajetha surname

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

Fails completely WP:GNG, GPTZero clearly shows created using WP:LLM. Nothing verifiable or exists. Agent 007 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Agent 007 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weed Hack Premium Beta (Internet Phenomenon)

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

No secondary sourcing or indication of notability, with the article itself stating As of May 2025, no major Minecraft modification community sites have reviewed the client. A WP:BEFORE give me nothing more than Reddit threads. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. Found nothing useful (but Reddit threads!) Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 21:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mrityu Diary

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

Another book by the author Tulasi Acharya, whose own wiki article was deleted due to No compelling keep arguments, LLMs, one-edit accounts, highly dodgy sourcing, and some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time.

Previous discussion of the author and his books:

Like the other books, I believe this one fails WP:NBOOK. Source review in the comments below. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Source review:

Source 1 is the book's page on the publisher's website. Primary source, not independent.
Source 2 and Source 3 are reviews by the same person, Padam Bhattarai (one in English, one in Nepali) - so regardless, they would only count as one source for the purposes of WP:NBOOK. These reviews are suspicious: they appear to be the only thing that Mr. Bhattarai has written for either website. Someone named "Padam Bhattarai" appears to be Facebook friends with Acharya and is interacting with his posts: [5] Notably, Republica (Source 2) was deemed not reliable for a review of Acharya's work in this AfD due to an apparent (different) conflict of interest.
Source 4 is a review in The Rising Nepal by Narayan Prasad Ghimire. Mr. Ghimire seems to have a special interest in Acharya's books: he has also reviewed Sex, Desire, and Taboo for the Kathmandu Post [6] and Swapnabhumi for Nepal News [7]. In addition, Mr. Ghimire and Acharya appear to be Facebook friends: see e.g. this recent post with a comment from Mr. Ghimire. Major COI red flags here.
Source 5 is a review for the Sahitya Post by Badri Prasad Dhakal (in Nepali). The Sahitya Post is a "literary portal" that seems to accept a wide variety of content from writers, including promotional and self-promotional content. Its reliability and editorial controls are dubious.

Astaire (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ry Armstrong

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

Ry Armstrong doesn't seem to have any significant coverage as either an actor or as a politician. Two of their three roles were uncredited and the third, in The Gilded Age, was for an unnamed side-character. As a politician, Armstrong lost a primary election for Seattle City Council by a wide margin (they only received 1.86%) and is a candidate for mayor of the city. As of today, Armstrong is currently has 1/3 of the fundraising as the top two candidates and has not been included in any polls. I've gone ahead and reviewed a good portion of the sources below, with the other half being almost entirely self published or very minor coverage.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Microplastic Consumer
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.outfrontmagazine.com/meet-genderqueer-gilded-age-actor-ry-armstrong/	Interview	Out Front is a decently reputable magazine, suitable for LGBTQ+ topics	Interview with the subject about their role in The Gilded Age (TV series) as an unnamed character	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/neglect-by-the-gilded-ages-ry-armstrong-begins-performances-october-11			One paragraph about a performance of a play being announced	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/calling-all-broadway-devotees-join-a-guinness-world-record-attempt-by-singing-the-greatest-showman	Seems a bit promotional, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt		Subject is only given a passing mention as an organizer	✘ No
https://playbill.com/article/the-gilded-ages-ry-armstrong-to-debut-new-play-neglect			Only a single paragraph with no plot summary	✘ No
https://www.thestranger.com/elections-2023/2023/03/13/78895136/drama-kid-ry-armstrong-wants-your-vote-in-district-3	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	The Stranger is reliable for Seattle City Politics	~ Routine campaign coverage but does go in-depth on the subject	~ Partial
https://www.thestranger.com/news/2025/03/18/79972532/ry-armstrong-wants-bruce-harrells-job	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	The Stranger is reliable for Seattle City Politics	~ Could be argued as routine campaign coverage, but does go in-depth on subject	~ Partial
https://www.bothell-reporter.com/life/kenmore-native-creates-album-featuring-broadway-stars-for-a-good-cause/	~ Based off of an interview, but written by a journalist	Local Newspaper	Seems sort of promotional and the coverage is very local	✘ 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}}.

Microplastic Consumer (talk) 19:23, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Politicians, Theatre, New York, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmette Junior High School

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

Disputed redirect (with a personal attack). Non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "with a personal attack"? I see here that you replaced the entire article with a redirect and were called out for vandalism by another user. Caeryllium (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling something vandalism, when it isn't, is a personal attack. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wilmette Public Schools District 39. I found these [8] [9] [10], but I find it unlikely that they add up to establish notability per WP:NSCHOOL or are enough for a fulfilling encyclopedic article. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 San Martin Jilotepeque bus disaster

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a couple passing mentions in Spanish-language articles about other crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There was international contemporary press coverage at BBC [11], Reuters [12], Sky News [13], RTVE [14], DW [15]. There's been sustained coverage in Guatemalan press: 2016 [16], 2025 [17][18][19]. MarioGom (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources don't confer notability. The sustained coverage in each of those articles is, respectively: two sentences in an article about another crash, six sentences in an article listing crashes, two sentences in an article listing crashes, and three sentences in an article about another crash. If they were all like that second one, then I'd maybe be willing to call it borderline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MarioGom. I still interpret this as a persistent historical event based on those short mentions. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A year later, there was a memorial service which was covered with a full article, "Victims of accidents in San Martín Jilotepeque are remembered with mass", by Prensa Libre, Guatemala's newspaper of record. In a poor, mountainous country with a history of mass-tragedy bus accidents, the 2013 San Martin Jilotepeque accident was the worst and the baseline for comparison until a worse one this year. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as failing the extended coverage test of WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the non-breaking coverage is significant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. state welcome signs

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

A dictionary definition of a welcome sign, followed by a gallery. Fails to establish notability. See also: WP:NOTGALLERY. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of these photos are also copyvios. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely copyvios, since these are all from Commons category|Road signs by country - Commons would have deleted copyvios. — Maile (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Pi is an administrator on Commons? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep per WP:NLIST. There are sources for this group of things: "50 state road trip: State welcome signs" and "State welcome signs from around the USA", both USA Today; "Which U.S. State Welcome Sign Is The Best?", BuzzFeed; "50 Welcome Signs for the 50 United States of America", Condé Nast Traveler; "The Welcome Sign from Every State in America", Reader's Digest. Who would've guessed it? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY. I don't buy the copyvio argument above (except maybe with one or two exceptions), but that's really beside the point. At best, this belongs on Commons. There's no way to verify that these are current, or that a state doesn't use multiple variants, etc. -- just a bunch of (often low quality) snapshots of these things. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we actually have a bot that periodically goes through all articles and deletes state-owned images. An example is here, which removed an image I'd put on. The exception is if the images were taken individually and uploaded individually. The bot takes time and makes errors. Just an FYI. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 16:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST as others have said. Also individual state welcome signs (and tourism slogans in general) generally tend to be notable with sources written about them whenever they're changed. Flyingfishee (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a discussion based on the source eval of the sources found, as well as on the notability on the list as a whole entity per NLIST?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see lists of signs like this from other countries. Each state has to delineate itself from another, but that is not enough for notability or a stand alone article. Each state sign can be put into the main article of the state if anything is to be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST this looks nice. As to the comment above about other countries having lists like this, please refer to Category:Road signs by country. — Maile (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's source coverage specific to US welcome signs, see [20]. MarioGom (talk) 09:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list meets WP:NLIST. That leaves the other question - do we want this information? Does it violate WP:NOT? Personally, I am not especially interested in the United States' state welcome signs but I note that this page averages 45 page views per day (excluding bots and crawlers). That's more than the average WP page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While interesting, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY, as noted by the IP editor above, as the signs are shown with zero context. They would require context to make this a viable list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at book and academic sources available online, there seems to be a lot of in-depth literature and analysis of American welcome signs at the local level. At the state level so far, it seems to be mainly newspaper and magazine articles (precisely because it makes for such an attractive gallery-type article). Let's keep digging. (Maybe someone has access to a real physical library with books like this?) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article, it is a photo collage. There is essentially no prose or substance to it. I'm a little concerned at those who are looking at similar photo montages in publications and using them to support significant coverage claims - we would need articles that actually discuss the signs as a whole (and "discussed" is the exact verbiage in NLIST) rather than simply list photos of them with little or no further context. This article also asserts that each state has just one kind of welcome sign, which is not true, and does not check for the timeliness of the supposed "current" signs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Textbook case of WP:NOTGALLERY here, and the lack of coverage of these signs as a group leads to WP:NLIST not being met here. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+delete Besides WP:NOTGALLERY, there's also the implication that each state has one distinctive sign type. I don't think that's true in Maryland, and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't true in other states. The style of sing evolves over time, but older signs are not necessarily replaced promptly; I also recall that on some more prominent roads there is more elaborate signage at some crossings. This feels like a commons category, not a list article. Mangoe (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't an article, it's a WP:GALLERY, and as Mangoe pointed out there are states with several welcome sign designs because of age or historic notability, along with several 'local' areas such as the state line between the Kansas Citys where there isn't expected to be a welcome sign at every intersection of State Line Road. Other signs are obnoxious WP:PROMO for their governor's initiatives with taglines (Florida especially, and any state which uses 'open for business') and switched out between governorships. Nathannah • 📮 22:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova

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

This article does not yet appear to be notable for English Wikipedia Insufficient Sources, and the topic may not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Lists of people, Music, and Popular culture. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 02:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumar Gadimova is a well-known figure in Azerbaijani pop music and is widely recognized by the public in the country. Her artistic career has been covered by numerous reliable and independent sources such as APA, AzərTAc, Musavat, and Report. She has been active in the music industry since the 1990s, performing solo concerts, with her songs broadcast on national television and radio, and has participated in several state-level events.

The article is based on verifiable and independent sources, and the subject clearly meets the notability criteria due to her impact on Azerbaijani culture and public recognition. For these reasons, I oppose the deletion of the article and recommend that it be kept.Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 10:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijan government should be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. I found sources stating this, but all are in Azerbaijani and I'm not sure if they're reliable enough.[21] [22] — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The official website of the President of the country has reported on this. Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw it. But independent, reliable sources are needed, and that is a primary source, which is not great. Are there others? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 13:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bakupost.az/xumar-qedimovaya-emekdar-artist-oldu https://mia.az/mobil/1075536 https://rublika.az/index.php?newsid=22845 https://etikxeber.az/xumar-q%C9%99dimova-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-oldu/ https://hit.az/az/senet/264643/emekdar-artist-konserte-hazirlasir/ https://musavat.com/ru/mobile/news/bacisi-xumar-qedimova-emekdar-artist-olmasindan-xebersizdir_420423.html https://www.gununsesi.info/xumar-q%C9%99dimovaya-%C9%99m%C9%99kdar-artist-adi-verildi/ https://baku.ws/show-business/xumar-qdimovaya-mkdar-artist-ad-verildi-srncam https://azxeber.com/az/emekdar-artist-turkiyede-trend-oldu/maqazin/ https://news24.az/180697-emekdar-artist-sevenlerine-seslendi.html Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are those independent, reliable sources? Linkbombing is not enough for a discussion. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://president.az/az/articles/view/22993 The most reliable source. The country's president's own official website Farrux Dadasbayli (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Being selected as an 'Honored artist' by the Azerbaijani government, which is a national level recognition, is enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting that the Azerbaijani spelling of her name is Xumar Qədimova (which I have added to the article). Searching on this spelling will probably bring up more sources in that language. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep above information and additional sources have been sufficient to determine notability as well as WP:ANYBIO#1 with a national honour and yes, WP:NEXISTS. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm classification

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

The concept of paradigm classification is not clear and not widely used in the sense of a two-dimensional classification structure. This article really has only one reference, and that is a blog by William Denton called Miskatonic University Press. According to that text, paradigm classification is not a subset of faceted classification. That is not accurate, according to Denton´s blog. The term can also be used in the sense of classification of paradigms, which is how it used in the Ahlberg paper. So, paradigm classification is not widely used and it is used in different senses. In any case, the concept does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "paradigm" is an infamously polysemic word, and Google Scholar turns up several different incompatible uses of this term on the first page of results. Trying to chase down all the different potential use cases for a disambiguation seems futile. Psychastes (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aha Han

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

I see nothing mentioning this anywhere and cannot find anything to back up anything in this article. Fails WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main source for this article was the Dictionary of Turkish Legends, which was deleted (in what I think is not a great move) because the linked PDF was hosted on Wikipedia. See p. 24. I don't know how to effectively search for reliable sources in Turkish to find any more useful info. -- Recon rabbit 14:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ due to lack of sourcing that actually mentions this, let alone provides WP:SIGCOV. I know it's hard to find sources in another language but reading the (auto translated) talk page of the Turkish Wikipedia article, they can't find any acceptable sources either. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as I can't assess the new sources. Their being in Turkish is no hindrance to their acceptability, I just can't auto-translate them well enough to assess them. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added several Turkish-language sources to the article. While there are no English-language references at the moment, the topic is covered in Turkish scholarly and folkloric works, which is expected for a subject rooted in Turkish mythology. According to WP:NONENG, non-English sources are acceptable if they are reliable. The article can be improved further, but it shows signs of notability within the context of regional mythology. I believe it should not be deleted. – Gökhan Can (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Turkic mythology. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. Sources look very weak and if anything can be salvaged, merge sounds reasonable. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a clear consensus, if possible, can we discuss and evaluate the sources added? Yes, the non-English sources are well used. Just like English sources, as long as they meet standards, mentions the subject and verify either the notability of the subject, details or both, it is a great addition.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:29, 24 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.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Ngandu

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

Fails WP:NTRACK as the Houston Marathon is not one of the World Marathon Majors, nor are it, the 500 Festival Mini-Marathon, or Columbus Half Marathon on that level of major running competitions. The existing sources are an Alamy photo showing Ngandu crossing the finish line in Houston; brief listing of stats by Tiffin University, World Athletics, and the Track & Field Results Reporting System (TFRRS); and an insignificant note by the 500 Festival Mini-Marathon that he trains in Van Wert, Ohio. The Tiffin University and Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference websites provide the only significant coverage of Ngandu, neither of which are independent of the subject 1 2. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sport of athletics. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Houston Marathon isn't an WMM, but it is a World Athletics Label Road Races Gold label race, which satisfies WP:NTRACK #2 "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)".

I found additional independent in-depth coverage of Ngandu, e.g. from The Buffalo News: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-buffalo-news-on-a-winning-course/173048010/. I added this source to the article and removed some of the puffery because I agree the prose needed some work, but that can be improved by editing. --Habst (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Withdrawing as speedy keep now and editing Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Athletics/track_and_field_and_long-distance_running to update IAAF's now five-year-old renaming to World Athletics, so others do not make this embarrassing oversight in the future. Thanks! ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Houston Marathon isn’t one of the six World Marathon Majors, it is an IAAF Gold Label Road Race (now a World Athletics Label Road Race), and the athlete won the event.

By doing so, he satisfied the WP N-track criterion—placing in the top three at any other major senior-level international competition (WP N-track, 2). Wieditor25 (talk) 19:30, 24 May 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.

Boronia Road

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

The article doesn't establish the notability of this road. As a local suburban road I don't think it's significant enough for a Wikipedia article. – numbermaniac 18:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Your Too Late I Already Died

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

Article fails general notability (WP:GNG) and WP:NMUSIC . The only citation that provides actual information is from KnowYourMeme. Sosumiw (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beesons, Indiana

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

Looking at the maps, this is a rail junction, not a town, and that's how it comes up in every meaningful hit I got. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7th Generation Network

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

Lacks WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Looks like its here more of promoting websites/company and content from medium.com. Agent 007 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. Agent 007 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinai 48

AfDs for this article:

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

Fifteen years after being tagged for possible COI, this article still has not a single proper reference showing notability independent of the notability of certain members, and there does not appear to be one to be found. BD2412 T 16:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 16:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Ledbetter

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

Fails WP:NATHLETE. Ledbetter's professional career in European basketball was unremarkable and does not seem to have yielded coverage in German and Luxembourgish news. The currently listed sources are his entry in the Glenville State College Hall of Fame showering affiliated praise, a user comment from the DC Basketball Blog (not even the blog post itself), minor discussion of his single-game performance in The Glenville Mercury student newspaper, and a YouTube interview from the channel Alumni4life, a local varsity jackets retailer. While I found two other instances of Ledbetter's performance reported in the Glenville Mercury, neither instance bothered to mention his season-wide performance, much less broader commentary on him as an athlete/person. Being twice named to the First All-WVIAC Team is impressive, but for a NCAA Division II conference, that achievement seems below WP:NCOLLATH. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some more coverage at [[23]], [[24]], [[25]], and [[26]]. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the identification of additional sources! I think the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Indiana Gazette coverage when Ledbetter was playing in their respective areas is below the WP:NCOLLATH criterion of gaining "national media attention as an individual". Similarly, the Bedford County Press and Everett Press article is only a local newspaper reporting Saint Francis University's pride at recruiting Ledbetter. The Evening Sun article on Ledbetter's threat to not play at Crossland High School if transferred from Largo High School as part of D.C.'s racial integration is pretty interesting, though that coverage is not significant on him, nor did he follow through on that threat. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent info! JoseyWales019 (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Palme Primary School

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

Run-of-the-mill elementary school. Some minor local coverage but nothing establishing notability. — Moriwen (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and South Africa. — Moriwen (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Nation

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are PR stuff and no coverage from independent reliable sources, fails NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 05:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article reads like an advertisement for the company ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject is a UAE-based collective management organization that has received significant coverage from industry sources like Billboard, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The article can be further revised for tone and neutrality. Cleanup or advert tagging would be more appropriate than deletion. Subject has no relationship to past deleted articles titles "Music Nation". Mrmctorso (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the article with templates pointing out the promotional content. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a company which means it must meet WP:NCORP. In order to do so, there must be sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT. I can only find routine coverage such as this and mentions such as this, all of which do not add up to the coverage necessary for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User comment – If consensus leans toward deletion, I would prefer that the article be moved to draftspace rather than deleted outright. The article is based on verifiable, independent sources and documents a legitimate public–private rights initiative in the UAE. There will be opportunities to improve with additional coverage. Mrmctorso (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is that there is no additional coverage. This would fall under WP:OVERCOME. If the sources existed, I would gladly clean up per WP:HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors 4 Christ Wrestling

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable pro wrestling promotion. quick search shows 0 results. Since it was deleted in 2008, i recomend WP:SALT HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Alternative weeklies are typically regarded as credible journalistic sources. Are we disregarding that source because of a dead URL? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One source. Per WP:GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected" looking here, there are mostly wikias, reddit and facebook/youtube. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Di Fazio

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. Appears to be notable for only one event (the arrest of someone who is notable). ash (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dungri Bhil

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

Fails GNG, depends on single source, not enough coverage. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ethnic groups. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dholi Bhil

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

Fails GNG, depends on single source, not enough coverage. 🦅Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ethnic groups. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneian–Igan War

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

Contested Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, sources about this war in specifically is rare Syazwi Irfan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a newspaper column in a short-lived publication isn’t solid enough sourcing for an article about an alleged war. Mccapra (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies

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

Article is about a private academic/educational organization. There are only 3 sources: and all 3 are from the organization's own website.

Hence, no independent sources, therefore fails the WP:V and WP:Notability requirements.

Log says that an article of the same name was deleted in the past, but I cannot find that older AfD. Noleander (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a well-known independent institution in Hong Kong. Multiple local news agencies have reported findings of such institute which they are well cited.

https://news.mingpao.com/pns/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/article/20250328/s00002/1743099198748/%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E4%BA%9E%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF-63-%E6%8C%87%E7%8F%BE%E9%9D%9E%E8%B2%B7%E6%A8%93%E6%99%82%E6%A9%9F-42-%E6%96%99%E4%BE%86%E5%B9%B4%E8%B7%8C%E5%83%B9

https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20241111/mobile/bkn-20241111134821159-1111_00822_001.html

https://www.inmediahk.net/node/%E6%94%BF%E7%B6%93/%E3%80%90%E8%B2%A1%E6%94%BF%E9%A0%90%E7%AE%97%E6%A1%88%E3%80%91%E4%B8%AD%E5%A4%A7%E6%B0%91%E8%AA%BF%EF%BC%9A%E4%BA%94%E6%88%90%E5%8D%8A%E5%B8%82%E6%B0%91%E6%84%9F%E4%B8%8D%E6%BB%BF-%E6%BB%BF%E6%84%8F%E5%83%858%EF%BC%85

Articles from secondary sources on this institute include

https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%9A%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80/7260339

https://onthinktanks.org/think-tank/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%E4%BA%9E%E5%A4%AA%E7%A0%94%E7%A9%B6%E6%89%80/

Please let me know if you are unsatisfied with what I have provided and would like more or something else, thank you. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three sources cite the organization's work without anything about the organization itself. The Baidu Baike entry is another online encyclopedia, and onthinktanks.org is a directory listing with content likely provided by the organization. Oblivy (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Hi there I’m not sure if you would have the time of doing so but could you please take a look and see if you could try finding related sources to this article, since you have similarly done so in the past. Thank you very much. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This institute has been cited hundreds of times on Jstor. [27] Their polls are regularly covered in the news, e.g. SCMP: [28][29][30], NYT: [31][32][33][34]. They are also called variations like "the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies at Chinese University" or "Hong Kong Institute of Asia Pacific Studies" (no hyphen) or the abbreviated "HKIAPS". I haven't found sigcov yet but I am not sure if meeting the GNG is required here; similar to our standards for academics and newspapers, I think the bar should be lower here. Toadspike [Talk] 07:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, the previous deletion was a speedy under WP:A7 from 15 years ago. [35] There was no AfD and that speedy deletion, being a content issue and not a notability issue, should have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Slaughter

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

Subject fails NPOL and sources are insufficient to satisfy the requirements for GNG (independent, reliable, and substantial coverage). Some are interviews (not even with the subject), while others are election results from unsuccessful candidacy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, United Kingdom, England, and Wales. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the discussion, my argument for keeping the article as is, is as follows:

In the NPOL guidelines under the subheading Politicians and judges, it includes politicians who are quote "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Further in this point's explanatory note (8) it states "...A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Slaughter as a local Welsh politician has indeed gained independent news feature stories about him. Here are links to several of them:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-50368944

https://nation.cymru/news/anthony-slaughter-re-elected-as-leader-of-wales-green-party/

https://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/news/10945089.penarths-anthony-slaughter-elected-deputy-leader-of-welsh-green-party/

Further here are two articles BBC News articles whereby he is mentioned in passing because he is the leader of the Wales Green Party (non-feature articles):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-56644323

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2520dndy6o

Best, Flare Flarehayr (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Lea

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BANDMEMBER. She is a member of two non-notable groups and has had a few modelling jobs, all explained with mostly unreliable references. orangesclub 🍊 10:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. orangesclub 🍊 10:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Sena

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

Declined prod with this reason: meets WP:NATH #7.

I don't see this person meeting WP:NATH especially as he didn't complete the sole Olympics event he competed in. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Portugal. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. IRS SIGCOV is needed for all such articles, and yeah, they didn't even finish the race so it seems unlikely that there would ever have been much in the way of coverage. There are a lot of other Jose Sena's out there so I'd caution anyone doing BEFORE work on this to make sure that any references found are about the same Jose Sena. FOARP (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics where this person's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. From the "expanded" article, source 3 is passing mentions in primary race coverage N; 4 is a namecheck N; 5 is a namecheck N; 6 is a namecheck N; 8 is a namecheck N; 9 is passing in primary race coverage N; 13 is a namecheck N; 14 is passing N. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Svartner and Clariniie: Does the expansion/comments below persuade either of you to advocate "keep"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is one of the better attempts at saving an Olympian stub lately. It shows a path to notability. His claim to notability would not mainly stem from the 1980 Olympics, but from the World Cross Country Championships where he finished 30th in 1980 and 31st in 1982. I have found what looks to be significant coverage about the POC's decision to omit/bypass José Sena at the 1984 Summer Olympics. [36][37] Mind you, I'm not taking any mention as "sigcov". Maybe others would have success in searching portal.arquivos.pt too? Geschichte (talk) 05:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sold on this being SIGCOV: Sena was one of three Portuguese athletes subject to the decision discussed in these articles so it seems unlikely that there would be detail about him. More likely the real story was Portugal at these events, which justifies the redirect (and covering the decision there). Of course, if people can get access to coverage of this decision that could change. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean about "the real story was Portugal". It says in plain language that the stories are about 2 and 3 individuals respectively, and this does not seem to me like such a large group that Sena would drown out in the crowd. One story is about the omission itself, the other is about wider repercussions, i.e. a solidarity action from other athletes, showing at least some kind of significance at the time beyond the individual. At the same time, I only said it looks like sigcov, not that it is without having seen the whole articles. Geschichte (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IDK - I’ve not been able to access the specific stories listed here but I’ve read stories about it available from other outlets (eg La Stampa) and they have no SIGCOV of Sena specifically. They focus on the decision of the Portuguese officials to have a higher bar than the IOC and the complaints of the Portuguese athletics team as a whole. I’m not sure these outlets would be much different - the story isn’t about these individuals per se. FOARP (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd believe the Italian newspaper you read it in, has much more second-hand information, and also condensed it considerably because their readers would not be familiar with any of the Portuguese individuals. Domestic newspapers would on the other hand include much more detail; I can't say anything firmly about the sources though. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Diário Popular coverage linked above. --Habst (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the expansion and that we know for a fact he was covered in Diário Popular. We can't access it, but apparently the article, which covered only him and one other subject, was large, given the statement in the records "Newspaper clipping taken from the box with the quotation 00220, cover no. 78B 'Preparation for the Games', due to its size, was found together with other smaller press clippings on the same subject." That is very, very, very likely to be significant coverage. I'll further state that it is not at all reasonable to assume someone like him, whose absence from an Olympics apparently received SIGCOV, would not have additional coverage for any of his numerous world championship appearances, numerous national championships, or his national records. I am entirely certain that a search of relevant newspapers (which has not been done) would reveal abundant extensive coverage. The expanded article, along with the coverage that is guaranteed to exist, is sufficient to keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Portugal at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics - As per FOARPs analysis, the two news reports linked above are not secondary coverage of the athlete. The story is about the Portuguese decision on admission times. We don't need to get into the fact that news reporting is primary and such like, because WP:PAGEDECIDE must be considered, and is too often neglected. There is nothing here showing why a page is merited for this athlete, and all information in the source can be covered in the redirect target - where it would be better placed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way would the several decent paragraphs, containing numerous details such as his clubs, national titles, national records, world championship appearances, etc., be "better placed" at the Portugal at the Olympics article?? A vaguewave at "PAGEDECIDE" doesn't tell us anything, and there is most certainly many things showing here why a page is merited – national titles, national records, world championship appearances...the fact that we are 100% certain he has newspaper coverage – these are all things that are near-certain to have attracted abundant SIGCOV. For any American, of Swiss, or Icelandic (the countries with the best newspaper archives) in this position we'd easily be able to prove GNG for. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In your !vote above, you say, of the Diário Popular cutting, that we cannot access it but that you believe it is very likely SIGCOV on the page subject because it is apparently larger than the other cuttings. But the article is not about the page subject, it is about the Portuguese Olympic Committee decision, so even if you are correct about its size, it is very much a guess that there is SIGCOV. But also, I am not convinced it is larger than the other shorter cuttings it is found with. It appears to have been collated in a collection of shorter cuttings. Notice that the Portuguese you have translated here is ... outros recortes de imprensa de menor dimensão sobre o mesmo assunto. De menor is indeed the comparative form there, and can be translated as shorter. But it doesn't have to be. De menor dimensão is literally "of minor/lesser size", but is often used as an irregular comparative of pequeno. Yet it is not at all clear to me that it is saying the other clippings are of lesser size than this one. Rather, it says that, owing to its [apparently small] size, it was found amongst other small clippings (other clippings that, like this one, are of lesser size). So no, we have no evidence of SIGCOV there. Everything else is equally speculative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this analysis. I've been watching this page hoping someone eventually got access to the newspaper articles, but seeing as we still don't actually know the extent of the secondary coverage they give directly to Sena, I don't think it's viable to presume SIGCOV exists. The expansion of the page is also totally irrelevant, as it is entirely from primary databases and thus not inherently encyclopedic material in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I think the consensus is clear, I think this will be contentious so aiming for more eyeballs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digital signal processing and machine learning

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

Was declined numerous times at AfC, until the article's creator simply moved it into mainspace. This is more of a personal essay, not an article. As per [WP:NOTESSAY]]. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this topic is too important for deletion. Given the rise of ai hype and under analysis of hardware requirements, you can understand why it may have been made in the first place. 98.144.73.117 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete more of a speculative (and rather padded) essay than an encyclopedia article. The lack of mention in the main DSP article is also telling. It wouldn't surprise me that AI gets directed at DSP, but at this point we don't need this sprawling reflection. Mangoe (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allin Kempthorne

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

I've AFD'd this, but actually I think it should be redirected to Wriggler (video game). There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject of this article. Sourcing is all tabloid news (The Mirror, The Sun, Metro) or passing mentions. Simply appearing on BGT (and not being recognised...) does not indicate notability. Simply being a bit-part actor in numerous films does not indicate notability. Additionally I have WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns here.

They wrote the ZX Spectrum game Wriggler together with their twin when they were at school, and this game is clearly notable, but nothing else they have done appears to be notable.

Also nominating The Vampires of Bloody Island for deletion (no need to redirect this), which is the film Allin Kempthorne created. The only coverage that could be found for this is blatantly promotional ("we were forced to bring forward the release of this film because of an email campaign that no-one but us is the source for existing") and from sources of dubious reliability. Simply being nominated for a Twitter Shorty Award does not indicate notability.

Similarly also Learning Hebrew for the same reasons.FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, and Video games. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, Television, Entertainment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, concurring per nom. IgelRM (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IgelRM@MimirIsSmart - Also redirect for the two films? Or delete? FOARP (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make sense to redirect film article to a game. I would say Delete but this combined AFD is a bit confusing. IgelRM (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom with WP:NPOV disputed and as for the the next one, since it exists, redirect to a suitable one since Allin's does meet neutrality and COI as suggested or keep if there are more sources. I will suggest we keep one worthy, I will work on it and find sourcs to redirect others to newly edited one per WP:ATD as one can argue WP:TOOSOON.
HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no mention of Wriggler anywhere in the article, or any sources for it, so it's not a legitimate redirect term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you criticizing that Kempthorne involvement in Wriggler isn't sourced well? IgelRM (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what @Ritchie333 is trying to say is that, since Wriggler isn't even mentioned in the current article on Kempthorne, it's a WP:ASTONISH issue for anyone looking for info on Kempthorne. I'm inclined to agree. Anyone who searches for "Allin Kempthorne" will still be able to find Wriggler (video game) in the search results, they just won't be automatically directed there. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but then I could just add a mention of Wriggler to the article now and defeat the argument? However, I'm fine with Delete as the game doesn't appear particularly relevant to the person's career. IgelRM (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because there are three articles under review, I think this needs more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Grosh

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources in the article are all primary and a search elsewhere didn't come up with anything to support notability here. Let'srun (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson Nieto

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of significant coverage. The only references in the article are primary and I couldn't find anything elsewhere to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, Indiana, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tolani Ibikunle

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current references are all primary to the clubs and leagues the subject has played for, and while [[38]] has some quotes from the subject the article is more about MLS referees having a racial bias than him. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Finland, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Hardware and Design Alliance

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

I couldn't find secondary sources with sufficient coverage to establish notability. The best I could find was that [39] mentions them in passing and says they folded "some time after 2010", similarly [40] mentions them to say they've been "discontinued". [41] mentions they 'resurfaced with the “Open Source Hardware Certification” programme of the Open Source Hardware Association in 2018' but doesn't source that or give further info.

When I tried to PROD the article a year ago, User:Jueneu said on the talk page they were still active but I can't find any significant coverage since then, just some self-published content around "ohanda.one". JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. JaggedHamster (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources that would qualify this for WP:NORG. Appears to be defunct and was never particularly notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Open hardware. The organization does not seem to pass WP:ORGCRIT for a standalone article, but a mention at Open hardware seems to be warranted given it has been (briefly) discussed in reliable sources such as [42] (published by Oxford University Press) or [43] (published by Taylor & Francis). MarioGom (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Computing. MarioGom (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Open hardware per MarioGom. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Karani

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only sources in the article are primary and all I could find elsewhere were a couple of sentences of coverage at [[44]], which isn't quite enough for notability to be established. While the previous AfD closed as "keep", that was based on WP:NFOOTY, which has since been depreciated. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, Kansas, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queer Contemporary Art of Southwest Asia and North Africa

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

This is a student article that has become a bit of a coatrack article with a POV split. The article itself requires a § Terminology section just to define its own criteria and then is otherwise mostly determined by exhibitions and events, festivals and initiatives pertinent to that criteria. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Sexuality and gender, and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also, the article is an essay. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 01:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll vote Draftify per Bearian. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 22:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - while the terminology section is a disaster, it can be fixed and it's not yet the end of the semester. The student editor should be able to fix the mistakes in the article. I think college is all about learning from mistakes. FWIW, I'm a gay man who identifies as "queer". Bearian (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noninator's comment: not opposed to draftify. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think this article could use some editing, to make it both more concise and easier to read. I don’t think that warrants it being deleted. The information is still useful. Vvbudh (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Copied from AfD talk page by Suriname0 (talk), because I think it is appropriate to include here in the main discussion. Vvbudh, you are welcome to vote explicitly in this AfD by writing a comment on this page that begins with '''Keep''' (for example). Suriname0 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Somewhat to my surprise a look at the sources shows that this is a topic covered in reliable sources and not simply a synthesis of original research. No need for deletion. Should be kept and improved, or perhaps condensed into a section at Queer art or a similar article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, issues with the writing are not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is sufficiently covered in reliable secondary sources (which are in this article) and therefore passes GNG.

(Though I have no prejudice towards merging with Queer art, if others think that's a better idea) ApexParagon (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: in its current form, its an essay and apparently original research. I suggest draftification to give a chance to the author to either split the content to relevant articles, or better delineate the subject for a standalone article. MarioGom (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, possible to make this an article at some point, but i'd rather it remain in Draftspace until its essay tone gets sorted out. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrosia Organic Farm

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

Coverage on this company is limited to recycled press releases and advertorials (notice the article titles containing terms like "motivating story", "heartening story" and "intriguing story" as well as the lack of a byline). Falls well short of the sourcing standards expected at WP:NCORP. Yuvaank (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Ha-yeon

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

Fails WP:BANDMEMBER and WP:GNG. orangesclub 🍊 10:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. orangesclub 🍊 10:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BANDMEMBER Destinyokhiria (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TripleS. Group is notable, member doesn't appear to be notable individually. MidnightMayhem 11:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think someone moved it to draft while not addressing this discussion. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural, moved to draftspace without consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Management

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

Non-notable modeling agency. Simply a laundry list of clients. Mostly unsourced, and the sources that do appear are simply announcements or basic coverage of a new client. No WP:SIGCOV indicating the agency is notable for any other reason. ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent RS which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Fashion, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ouaissa

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

I don’t believe this subject passes any of the criteria of WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Algeria, and Germany. Mccapra (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that I can't see a pass of any of the NPROF criteria. A pass of WP:NAUTHOR would be more likely, but I was only able to find the one review already cited in the article, plus this review of one of their edited volumes. A German speaker might have better luck, but I couldn't find nearly enough for notability. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I somehow feel that someone at his rank should have more visible, and maybe the language barrier is preventing us from finding it, but one review of a monograph and one review of an edited volume isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and I also don't see enough for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the necessary sources to demonstrate notability. Lacks WP:GNG, if more sources can be found to bolster notability, let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I estimate his GS h-factor to be 8-10, which is low. However, when I look at those of his co-authors who have profiles, their h-factors are in the range 10-20. Hence I have to conclude that this is a very low citation field, so not as low as the raw numbers suggest. I have not checked if his books have had favorable reviews; I cannot find any awards to boost the case. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some comparative GS profiles are [45], [46], [47], [48], with a couple being in the mid-twenties. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saad bin Abdulaziz Al Qanbar

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

Deprodded without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vellimalai Sri Vivekananda Ashramam

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree per nom - not able to find much for WP:RS. Sources currently used seems mostly promotional and also e.g. without any staff writer in the byline - simply as "NEA News Service", "Express News Service". Also, e.g. I see that one news source link is flagged as "potential security risk". Asteramellus (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Hinduism, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This centre is a very important one in South Tamilnadu; the annual events conducted by the ashramam is a large event and is being attended by 25000+ students annually. The article cites three prominent newspapers from India: 1. The New Indian Express, a well-regarded and leading English-language daily in India; 2. Dinamalar, the third most widely circulated Tamil newspaper; and Dinamani, the most esteemed publication in the Tamil language. Those links are cited inline and shall be verified. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional article. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Nash Literary Agency

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

It is not meeting WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orechová (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page is not required. WP:G14 declined by @Pppery: with edit summary "Decline G14, does not apply (at least the feminine form of Orekhov (surname) counts as a valid second entry). There is no use of "Orechova" at Orekhov (surname). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hudson (musician)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, is solely dependent upon primary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a few mentions ([49], [50], [51]) but lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Good nom. 38.85.166.137 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Forest Apart

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

Can't find any reviews or bestseller listings for this e-book. Fails WP:NBOOK. Suggesting a redirect to List of Star Wars books#Star Wars Legends stories (1976–2014). Mika1h (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Mika1h (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Wars books#Star Wars Legends stories (1976–2014) as suggested. I couldn't find any reviews or other coverage either. MCE89 (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derekh

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

This purported disambiguation page is an incomplete list of articles containing the word: all entries are WP:Partial title matches. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page inhibits Search Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rule complex

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

This concept seems to be original research from a group of a few researchers from Uppsala university. I couldn't find references to this concept other than the primary sources of the researchers themselves.

It seems closely related to the concept of "Generalized game theory", which I have also nominated for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Generalized_game_theory).

Similarly to Generalized game theory, my recommendation would be to merge this article into the page of "Tom R. Burns", or alternatively to create a page dedicated to the "Uppsala Theory Circle" that summarizes the key concepts these authors are developing 7804j (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge - for the same reason as in the GGT !vote - its a concept that exists, is (or was) used, and has multiple peer reviewed sources. Merging, if that is the choice, would be to GGT if that article is kept or to the Burns page. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Care Institute of Medical Sciences, Ahmedabad

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

This seems to be a straightforward WP:PROMO article and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Redirect to Ahmedabad#Hospitals. Charlie (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GCS Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre

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

A straightforward WP:PROMO article and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Either redirect to Ahmedabad#Hospitals or Gujarat University. Charlie (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 07:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zydus Hospital

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

This seems to be a straightforward WP:PROMO article and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Redirect to Ahmedabad#Hospitals. Charlie (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Charlie (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monserrate Román

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

Retired mid-level program manager at NASA. Just as a university Dean is not automatically notable, I don't see how her prior position by itself passes notability. Google Scholar (MC Roman) yields only 1-3 cites for her publications, so she does not pass WP:NPROF#C1. All awards are internal, so I don't see them as proof. No WP:SIGCOV, just a few routine mentions. Page was a long unsourced essay, and current version (trimmed by nom) has little that is notable. While I am sure she played a role in developing the space station, I don't see enough. (I am willing to be proved wrong.) Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Spaceflight, and Puerto Rico. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above reasoning. I also did a search and the best thing I could find was a 2003 article from Spacenews.com that wasn't even an original story, but a press release, as well as this brief mention from the ASBMB. Leonstojka (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several sources and several awards, so I am leaning keep. Andre🚐 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree that her publications do not meet WP:PROF, but a 2021 book (Wonder Women of Science) includes 13 pages on Roman. She is also a recipient of NASA's Silver Snoopy Award which is given to 1% of people in aerospace. This information is now more clearly presented in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable. She helped ensure safe recycling of air and water in space. She later led NASA's Centennial Challenges Program.Tony the Marine (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to have enough publications size and has some some media appreances to be borderline notable at least. She already has small entry in List_of_Puerto_Rican_scientists_and_inventors#Microbiology in case some see redirecting option more viable. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wood

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and in extension, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator I would argue that it does not fail NPOL; WP:OTHERSTUFF. List of state parties of the Democratic Party (United States) and List of state parties of the Republican Party (United States) have red links and blue links, both showing that these types of figures are notable, seeing as they manage all political activity of their party in their state. Wood has Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANT coverage as can be seen by local news articles and governors press releases about him in references. Masohpotato (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Press releases by a governor about their appointee would not be considered independent of the subject. I think the presence of red links do not indicate notability. They indicate an editor put in red links. I've seen mayors of cities of 3,000 people with red links.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for meeting WP:NPOL as a state cabinet secretary. It is my understanding state cabinet secretaries have been interpreted as state/province–wide office for NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, this is not the kind of office that WP:NPOL presumes to be a notable one. Mpen320 comment below entails what I was going to reply here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials, but rather elected officials like those who sit on the North Carolina Council of State. While there are politicians who serve in those positions, I don't consider most of the people in this chapter of the Illinois Blue Book to be politicians and would consider it applies to the rest of the US including Arkansas. An example of a statewide official in an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer. It certainly does not apply to state party chairs who are often elected by a handful of people and are not guaranteed to generate enough independent, secondary coverage to warrant a presumption of notability. This would not preclude a creation based on meeting the criteria set out by other policies on Wikipedia. A county judge in a larger county and cabinet member (albeit one with a very short time in office) might be able to meet that threshold.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would note solicitor generals in the United States like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer are almost always under an attorney general and not cabinet members so not a great example. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Johnson (Alaska politician) is exactly on point, and resulted in a keep. Statewide cabinet members (and state supreme court justices) both meet WP:NPOL without elections, in my opinion and per precedent. Schimmer and Johnson are both listed on WP:NSUBPOL, and they illustrate the line. Wood is just barely past the notable line, in my opinion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just offering a general comment. I am agnostic on this particular article (hence the lack of a vote), but a personal believer that WP:NPOL is not intended to include most statewide, unelected department heads.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transportation secretary is a member of the Arkansas Cabinet, so by the letter of the law it would theoretically pass NPOL. However, there has been pushback prior regarding minor state cabinet positions that are more bureaucratic rather than political/ministerial (I do not know if this is one of those, just laying it out). Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Transportation Secretary of Arkansas, not merely as a party chair. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Mild nitpick. He was the Secretary of Transformation and Shared Services. The Secretary of Transportation is a different office under the Highway Commission. I imagine this does not affect your vote (as I own, it's a nitpick). I edited the article to correct it. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not believe that WP:NPOL applies a presumption to statewide appointed cabinet officials. The goal of any stand-alone page is to provide enough verifiable information from independent sources for readers to understand what the subject is and why they are important. With elected officials, there are frequently numerous articles about who they are, what they stand for, usually during the campaign, and then they are likely to be responsible for the implementation of public policy (and covered in reliable sources for those actions). Appointed (especially state) officials receive much less coverage (I think I once compared the coverage of appointed versus elected auditors). So, the question here is whether the subject passes WP:GNG, not whether the subject is presumed to be notable under WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't believe that WP:NPOL applies to state cabinet or agency heads that are not elected as they generally do not garner the same level of coverage. At the state level, being part of a governor's "cabinet" can range from being long-time civil service administrators of agencies to friends or donors of either the sitting governor/the governor's state party or to people that simply are part of the governor's staff that have heightened titles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than just one thing, so it adds up. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based discussion would be helpful for clearer consensus determination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the Week

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

Unsourced. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. There are news articles that mention books appearing on the show, but they are stubby program-guide type articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with BBC Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think there'd be room for this in an article about the BBC as a whole (this is not a statement on whether I think this subject is notable, just a comment on the above post). RobinCarmody (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that is should be merged with the main BBC Wiki page. Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is part of the fabric of the Wiki, with tons of pages linking it. (see links here). Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tons of pages link to it because it is included in a template on every article relating to BBC Radio 4. (See the content of the template in external sources.) I don't know whether this supports 'keep' or 'delete' but it does explain the proliferation of this link even on articles that are not directly related to this specific program. Lamona (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is on a template. Nevertheless, there are lots of wiki pages that link here with relevant content about Book of the Week. I have had a look. Many linked pages are about well known actors or narrators whose readings of the books were broadcast. Their readings are noteworthy parts of their careers.This is nationwide radio and the series has been broadcast for decades. Almost everyone in the UK would have heard of it. This page is part of the fabric of the wiki, so it should be kept. Snowman (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That's nice to hear. But you must develop an article which confirms what you are claiming. So far it does not, and many parts of the article remain unsourced or undersourced. Οἶδα (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BBC_Radio_4#Programmes. No sources showing notability or significant coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article and included independant sourses. Your comment is out of date now. The BBC is a realiable source, anyway. Do you see the significance of Book of the Week now? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The article mostly relies on WP:PRIMARY BBC sources. Per the WP:GNG: 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. The article you expanded has yet to demonstate this. Οἶδα (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You also appear to have used AI to "expand" this article too. Please leave that inhuman trash in the bin where it belongs. Οἶδα (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but create a category that can be used on books that are featured on the program. (I suppose that there may need to be subcategories for the years?) This would make it possible to retrieve all of the books on WP that have been featured. As a stand-alone, I do not find sources ABOUT BotW, but I do find sources about the books themselves. Also, the term "book of the week" is not exclusive to BBC 4, so the category term should include that. Lamona (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article and included in-line refs and sourses. Your comment is out of date now. The BBC is a realiable source, anyway. Do you see the significance of Book of the Week now? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating such a category would imply being selected as a weekly "Book of the Week" by this BBC programme is a defining characteristic. That is evidently not true and would constitute overcategorization. We could create analogous categories for all kinds of selections of books, film, tv etc. We do not. Οἶδα (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that there were list articles that were deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012
List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2013

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2014

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2015

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2016

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2017

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2018
and the larger List of books featured on Book of the Week was redirected.

and the navbox between them is up for deletion Template:Book of the Week. Οἶδα (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. is there another way to make it possible to search on this fact, or is such a search not desired? Lamona (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION covers this topic. Οἶδα (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article also fails WP:GNG. Leaving it as a redirect is also unsuitable. It is not even mentioned at BBC Radio 4, nor would it be appropriate to deeply cover it there. The name "Book of the Week" is also extremely generic and easily confused with the plethora of other publications and organisations that routinely name their own "Book of the Week". Οἶδα (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be moved to "Book of the Week (BBC)". It is an extremely well known series in the UK. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe the correct dab would be (radio series) or (radio programme). But that is beside the point. You can always create that redirect if you find it necessary. The real problem remains: 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:GNG) The article you expanded has yet to demonstate this. As I said to you at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 17, if you want an article kept on Wikipedia you must demonstrate significance, not make unsubstantiated and personal claims. Repeating "It is an extremely well known series in the UK" does not mean anything. I could make an article for my ham sandwich and say it is well known by every British household. Wikipedia does not rely on self-published sources or original research. Until I provide such evidence, the subject is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I searched the internet and Gbooks for at least 20 minutes and could not find significant coverage myself, and you have not provided any in the article. Your expansion only added primary (BBC) coverage, insignificant coverage in The Guardian, and obvious AI summary language. Even from the way the AI is writing I can easily tell it is struggling to come up with something from the same exact limited coverage I am reading. I would love nothing more than to see this article sufficiently developed, but alas it is not. And considering you surrendered the job to an AI language, I can only assume you aren't interested in doing the work or you also cannot dredge up significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Οἶδα (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Book of the Week" could be a future dab, and "Book of the Week (BBC)" could be this article. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It is in plain sight that "Book of the Week" is notable. Anyone can listen to BBC Radio 4 on the BBC Sounds between 9.45 and 10am any week day. Anyone in the world with an internet connection can do this. It has been broadcast weekdays for more than 20 years, it is almost as reliable as the Sun rising in the mornings (if you see what I mean). Anyway, the current expanded article shows that "Book of the Week" is notable and it does have reliable refs. The BBC is one of the most important sources for the Wiki. I did expand parts of article with AI assistance and I checked every source and edited the output to make it accurate. I wrote other parts manually. By itself, AI made an amazing article, but I had to reject most of it, because the sources needed a login or somehow not available to me. Using a "deep search" facility, AI found about a dozen refs. I used AI here under pressure from this deletion request. Thank you for removing some of the glossy AI language. I have made it a bid more readable too. It is worth having a look at all the "what links here"; there are many pages linking here, many books, authors, and narrators. Not just the links on the template. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have added BBC web pages to the article to support the data there. Unfortunately, those are not independent sources. (See WP:ORGIND and WP:INDEPENDENT). Therefore they do not support notability of the topic. Lamona (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have/had 2 non-bbc sources but unfortunately the Turpin one does not mention BBC or the reading of the book. I marked it as failing verification but it really should be deleted. Lamona (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to repeat yourself. It is rather unusual that an editor as accomplished and longstanding as yourself is refusing to produce evidence and instead settling for personal claims of notability and significance. And you can defend your use of AI, but it produced a rather substandard article that is really no better than the stub that preceded it. Just because you can dredge up insignificant coverage does not mean expanding the article with said coverage actually improves it and elevates it to the threshold of WP:GNG. I understood that you had at least somewhat copyedited the AI's summaries, but the "glossy" language you kept conferred context and significance that remained unsourced and honestly appears like just another conceptual hallucination/fabrication that AI language models are constantly guilty of. Your entire argument here is basically that Book of the Week is notable by virtue of it being a Radio 4 programme and by virtue of its longevity. That could be true, but it apparently has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources after all this time and all of its broadcasts. And I fail to see where your argument is supported by what is written at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Can you at all explain yourself beyond making unsupported claims? I hope you understand I am not trying to antagonize you. I am sure Book of the Week is fine programme that plenty of listeners follow and enjoy. I am only trying to verify that it belongs as a standalone article on Wikipdia. But I am not sure how many times I can continue to ask of you what is a policy expectation of all Wikipedia editors. This is not negotiable. Please rethink your editing style and bring your editing into compliance with policy. Οἶδα (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the relevant Wiki Projects. Please give enough time for more discussion. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The a former controler of BBC Radio 4 has stated in a national neswpaper that "Book of the Week" is an important part of Radio 4, then it it notable (see one of the article's sources). I think that the articled has adequate referencess to prove notability; nevertheless, I will search for more refernces when I have time. I would say that people living in the UK would certainly appreciate this article. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Book of the Week is a vital part of Radio 4 and frequently scintillates – and I have no doubt that some of the audience will feel its absence," Damazer said on his Radio 4 blog.

The newspaper is quoting a post from his Radio 4 blog. How does a single comment by a Radio 4 controller on his blog which was then quoted in passing in a Guardian article translate to significant coverage in reliable sources, thus meaning that the subject is worthy of a standalone article on Wikipedia? I'm not sure why you repeated this again in a extension down here intead of responding to my reply to you. Οἶδα (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see arguments all over the map here, Keep, Delete and Redirect. Can we get a actual source analysis here? Also, there are multiple needless comments of hostility here that border on personal attacks. Do not insult your fellow editors, focus on the article and its sources, not discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy. WP:NOPAGE applies. Also per Οἶδα's assessment of WP:GENERIC and the paucity of a redirect to our readers. (And @Liz:, yes I too note the WP:BLUDGEONING from Snowmanradio.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bagdi

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

fails GNG, unsourced since long time, not enough coverage Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 04:09, 17 May 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 May 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Bhil tribes. Did find this source: [52] if it is good enough. Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supervision of police personnel

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

WP:NOTDICT. Just a definition of the term. This adds nothing to the encyclopaedia. Golem08 (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Yes, it is just a definition of the term. It is also a stub and a disambiguation. And includes references to texts that contain FULL HELL LOT OF FURTHER INFORMATION. The nomination demonstrates a brilliant example of what "lack of due diligence" means. --Altenmann >talk 04:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Police accountability. That goes into far more depth than this article which is just a dictionary definition. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed. Different subjects. "Police accountability" goes in far more depth simply because it is a buzzword. "Supervision of police personnel" has nothing to do with "police accountability": "accountability" is how police is seen by public, while "supervision" is internal police works, well-defined by the corresponding regulations, with results not necessarily reported to public. --Altenmann >talk 06:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article simply because I need to disambiguate the term "police supervision (disambiguation)", about which nobody paid attention in Wikipedia so far. Since I dont have interests in police work, I created a stub, sufficient to cover the requirements of notability of the concept. --Altenmann >talk 06:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before !voting I strongly suggest to take a quick look into the sources cited and see with your own eyes that the subject does deserve an article. --Altenmann >talk 07:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Police accountability. Differences between public perception and internal supervision could be discussed in new section of article police accountability. HudecEmil (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lian Suharevich

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this teenage athlete. Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Israel. JTtheOG (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrematistics

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

An extremely obscure word appearing occasionally in Aristotle's work

Aristotle contrasts chresmatistics, which is the art of money-making, with economics, which is the art of household management in the Politics and in the Nicomachean Ethics. (Aristotle used the word 'techne' where I use the word 'art'.)

The term and category of chresmatistics is totally inessential to understanding Aristotle's views concerning which ways of acquiring wealth are legitimate and which illegitimate, or any other philosopher's views. And though the article may point out some real parallels between the criticism Marx and others made of capitalism, I don't think this very obscure Greek word has any real significance, and that any valuable content on this page should be merged to more frequently read general articles concerning philosophical critiques of capitalism, ancient ideas about economics, or into the articles of specific philosophers who developed Aristotle's ideas. Even then, I think that that material would be appropriate only if the later philosopher made this distinction between money-making and house-management a central element of their position. ForeverBetter (talk) 22:07, 9 May 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 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this follows the common convention in articles on concepts in ancient greek philosophy where the Ancient Greek word is used, such as Nous or Ataraxia. And Aristotle is not the only Greek author who discusses wealth, there are extant treatises by Plutarch and Philodemus on the topic, as well as discussions by Epicurus and many of the Stoics. Psychastes (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I cannot comment on the relevance of the term within the philosophical discourse, there are several academic papers, usually in business ethics as well as some coverage in media towards a lay audience. These either have the term in their title, or feature it within the first few paragraphs prominently.

Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator, User:ForeverBetter, set up this AFD on their second day of editing. If you want to offer a persuasive Delete nomination, it would be better to base it on Wikipedia policy reasons rather than your own opinion. That's how we determine notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. With only an argument to Delete and one to Redirect, there is no consensus here. I'd like to ask User:James100000 what his opinion is as he is the only other editor to comment but failed to "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete These are minor municipal elections, and I don'ty see the redirects since that would be a complete change of subject. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

AfDs for this article:

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Death toll is not notability without sustained and in depth sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received coverage from the BBC and Al Jazeera: [53] Servite et contribuere (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete World-wide flash-in-the-pan coverage is not extended coverage, which is what WP:GNG actually calls for. It's depressing that accidents involving Muslim pilgrims in Saudi Arabia are all too common, but each individual such accident is a datum, not an event of lasting notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received widespread coverage outside of region.--User:Namiba 14:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIS (file format)

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable. I just added 4 references found using the Google Scholar and Google Books link on this page above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Symbian, without prejudice of re-creation with proper sources and references. In its current form, this is an article that should have gone through WP:BLAR easily. MarioGom (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable.

80.212.144.89 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get some more inputs on the newly added sources and the ATD proposed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Symbian#Design. Not enough notability for stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Mapandan local elections

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

No cited sources cover the election at much length, and was not able to find much through searching. Election for small municipality of under 40,000, and relies on social media sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the page author has placed a comment on this discussion talk page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I would like to kindly request that the deletion discussion regarding my article be closed. Since the nomination, I have been able to gather and incorporate additional, verifiable information and reliable sources that I believe significantly improve the article’s notability and overall quality.

I understand and appreciate the community’s concerns raised earlier. However, with the newly added sources and updates, I believe the article now better meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. I am fully open to further suggestions for improvement and am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s content and sourcing guidelines moving forward.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best regards, IJeskanEditorV1 IJeskanEditorV1 (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 Laguna local elections as per may arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck, Mapandan is in Pangasinan. HueMan1 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pangasinan local elections, then. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pangasinan local elections. 2600:8806:2A05:1100:1097:AFF5:4FE9:E15F (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the changes since the nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StreetComplete

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

Promotional content, no indication of notability. This used to be a redirect which may be a better idea thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it would be better to improve the article instead of deleting it, StreetComplete is not the same as OSM. I'm not super familiar with Wikipedia but IMO notability seems to be fulfilled with several different sources covering the topic.

Also, could you please be more specific on what parts are "promotional" and how they could be re phrased.

Thanks and best regards --Fkjs (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: One sentence mentioned in https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/02/google_blocks_android_foss_donations/, many project descriptions at https://nlnet.nl/project/; NLNet seems to be considered a reliable secondary source, see LabPlot precedent. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeville, Indiana

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

Pne of a couple of places entered into GNIS from an 1876 atlas, the only other reference I can find is a passing inclusion in a list of towns. There's nothing in the topos or aerials, and the location is an unlikely point in the middle of a forest, but it's a safe bet that the coordinates estimated from the altas are inaccurate. Searching is heavily masked by every other Hopeville in the country. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Hopeville is an unincorporated community..." Bollocks. Nothing on USGS topo maps: [54], nothing on Gmaps: [55]; this place seems to exist only in Wikipedia and the GNIS. It's possible the coordinates are an error, but regardless, the "is" in the text make this stub article a lie. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TV3 Winchester

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

Non-notable cable-only ABC affiliate; only one source; could merge into WHSV-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WHSV-TV: A remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2006, when we were more willing to give separate articles to any program service carrying a major US TV network's programming, even if just a subchannel or cable channel (though at least an ABC affiliate with local news was probably more "deserving" than the numerous WB 100+/CW Plus subchannel articles we were also creating back then…) I'm sure there was at least some coverage out there beyond the WJLA deadlink, but I also don't see any reason why any encyclopedic material about this should be in a separate article from WHSV proper. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlottesville, Union County, Indiana

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

I found basically nothing of substance about this "no there there" spot. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At least Charlottesville appears on topo maps starting in 1960: [56], but never as more than a crossroad with four buildings (only one of which is there today). Fails WP:GEOLAND for lack of information. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sy Smith

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

Fails WP:SINGER. While this person has a Emmy Award nomination for a song back in 2002, that can slight notoriety can be merged with the movie Dancing in September of which the song is featured in. Aside from that, they have no major award wins as SoulTracks is not considered a major award. They have any notable charting songs. "Gladly" barely made into the top 100 of the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart in 1999 and "Fly Away with Me" supposedly charted on the Adult R&B Songs chart but they have no other charting entries. They do not have two or more musical releases on a major record label. Most of the sources are store links (Amazon), blog links (SoulTracks), social media/personal links (Twitter or personal website newsletters), and expired links. In closing, their reason for notability leans more on number 10 of the Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Sackkid (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article could use some tidying up, that is not grounds for deletion. Smith meets WP:BASIC with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Also, her work has been reviewed by Billboard, Ebony, Essence. Her regular appearances on American Idol was in a 2007 news article that was widely published (cited as ref #14). DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see anything on Essence.com that mentions Sy Smith. The only results are for Sy'rai Smith, a completely different person. She has not been featured on Ebony magazine either. And mentions in Billboard magazine were for the then-upcoming album on Hollywood Records which did not chart. "Her regular appearances on American Idol was in a 2007 news article that was widely published", the article simply states that she was one of the background singers for the American Idol house band. She was not participant as a contestant on the show. Sackkid (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in agreement with the above voter. The article can be expanded with additional sources that are easily found, particularly at her album articles. Her early-2000s albums were frequently reviewed by reliable sources such as Billboard, SoulTracks, and NuSoul and those reviews can be mined for more biographical info about her career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SoulTracks and NuSoul are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Also please see the above comment. Sackkid (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. 149.115.90.236 (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of WP:RS WP:SIGCOV is sufficient to meet WP:GNG WP:NOTABILITY requirements for inclusion. The nature of coverage passes the WP:SIGCOV threshold, so the case cannot be made that coverage is WP:TRIVIAL or WP:ROUTINE, since it is significant and demonstrates WP:IMPACT, therefore justifying a standalone article. I also find that available sources are reliable and independent, removing any concerns about WP:PROMO. Since the subject is notable, WP:NOTABILITY criteria per WP:GNG are met. ZachH007 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please make sure that you are not falling under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If you are saying there are sources, provide them. Otherwise, you are falling under WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Sackkid (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Dabi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, page was previously deleted twice as per afd consensus. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 02:34, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where exactly are they going with this article? If there are saying she is a "civil servant", shouldn't they just say politician? And if that's the case, it would fail WP:POLITICIAN. Sackkid (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakt

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, page was previously deleted as per afd consensus. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 02:42, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Blaise

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

Fails WP:BIO. A lot of this stuff is trivial. The Time source does not feature him as the topic of discussion, The Pink News source simply mentioned that he was one of the attendees but does not state that he organized the protest, The Bloomberg source does not exist, The Out magazine source was written by them (Blaise); which leads that this article could have been created and edited by Matthew Blaise. "In 2020, they were a winner of The Future Awards Africa "Prize for Leading Conversations" but the source does not mention him winning any award of the sort. Also, the page receives very little traffic. If this person is an actual activist, there should be more focus on what they actually changed in the course of history and human rights. But once you take away the sentences with the meaningless sources, you are left with trivial information about where he is allegedly attending college. Sackkid (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Knott-Craig

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

I see the COI but not the notability. Nothing the subject did is particularly notable, and the sourcing for the biographical details is particularly poor--the article partly leans on his father. The only thing I see that might sway some people toward "keep" is the "awards", but really, they are a dime a dozen: none of these lists have real encyclopedic importance. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see who wrote the caption for the image--I didn't even see that, and I'll leave it, haha. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tayo Aduloju

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable per WP:GNG. Article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject as well - considering that their entire edit history is related to the subject and their organization. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Africa, and Nigeria. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAFU (company)

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. I find it rather concerning that an article like this was accepted in AfC. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG, this nomination borders on the frivolous. CNBC? Check. Arabian Business? Check. The National;Emirates 24/7; Khaleej Times all national newspapers? Check. It's not even WP:BEFORE, it's staring you in the face, right there. The article is scrappy, but deletion as eny fule no, is not cleanup. The company is notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your perspective and it has already been discussed at RS Noticeboard. Kindly refrain from continuing this line of argument in a condescending tone, as it may be perceived as disruptive. Charlie (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus in that discussion, in which I note I was an enthusiastic participant, to deprecate UAE media or to treat them as generally unreliable. My line of argument, which I will feel perfectly free to continue to pursue, is that these are all RS, we clearly and unarguably pass WP:GNG and this nomination is, in that case, incorrect. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Lilly and Jack Sullivan

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

This seems to me like a case of too soon. The article appears to fail WP:EVENTCRIT in that this is a very recent event, with only recent coverage, and any lasting effects have yet to been established. As this only just happened, there has been no analysis of events after the fact. Per WP:GEOSCOPE, this is something of only regional importance, for a province with a population of only about one million people. I asked the author if they would object to me draftifying it, and they did, so it would no longer be appropriate to do so. MediaKyle (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated nomination: After thinking over it some more I feel like I should provide additional context for those voting in this AfD. This tragic disappearance of two children happened only three weeks ago. There has been conflicting reported on details by reputable news publishers, which has caused a flurry of speculation on true crime forums across the net, with the overarching speculation being that the parents did something terrible to their children. In addition to my previously stated reasons of this article contravening event notability guidelines, Wikipedia should have no part in the denigration of this family. If anything, this article should be sent to draft until it can be determined that this actually had any lasting impact. It should be noted that the event notability criteria specifically states that although many tragic events receive coverage, that alone doesn't warrant inclusion. MediaKyle (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, and Canada. MediaKyle (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author. I fail to see how the subject fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it has been covered both nationally in Canada as well as internationally in media outside of Canada (Newsweek, CNN, The Guardian), two of which were used as citations in the article at the time of its nomination. Regarding WP:EVENTCRIT, I would argue the subject of the article has lasting, historical significance, as it pertains to the unusual disappearance of two sibling children together under the care of their parents under mysterious circumstances, and has been described in various sources as being 'baffling' or 'strange' in nature. The scope of reporting is evidently also national and global as previously mentioned. The nominator advised on talk page discussion that "As a Nova Scotian" he was "rather uncomfortable" with the article as-is, but, with apologies, Wikipedia is not censored for the comfort of those closely involved with its subject matter.McRandy1958 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due to the coverage that this has. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage does not seem especially in depth and all sources are quite close temporally and most are close location wise. A lot of children go missing. While very sad there’s not the kind of coverage that really demonstrates a passage of WP:NEVENT PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EduAKsyon

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

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Two citations are: A opinion poll native advertising highlighting EduAKsyon as one of the preferred partylist groups (even if it just placed 20th) and the group's contact us page. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while not "too soon", this party does not pass WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable --Lenticel ^(talk) 21:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon Dapat

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

WP:TOOSOON, electoral organization that failed to win at least one of the possible three seats in congress. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to see how this is "too soon", as the election itself just happened. Sports teams are not sent to AFD as "too soon" if they haven't won a championship yet. Care to send Minnesota Timberwolves to AFD (LOL)? There's one WP:RS used on this article. WP:GNG does not mention how many WP:RS there should be, but this has one. Howard the Duck (talk)

Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT. No WP:SIGCOV and article is just a plot summary. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Politics, and United States of America. मल्ल (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I couldn't find sufficient coverage of this book to justify the article. The single source it has is the NYT bestseller list, which is meaningless, since every book ever is a NYT bestseller. Cortador (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has now been established. Cortador (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NBOOK, appearing on the New York Times bestseller list counts as one of the two non-trivial independent published works about the book that we need. The book also gets a paragraph in this article in The Economist, and is briefly discussed in this profile of Savage in the New Yorker. There are also passing mentions in the New York Times [57] [58] and in at least a dozen or so academic books about the American right. This is the kind of book where we're never going to see traditional "reviews" in reliable publications, but it does seem to have been discussed. I don't think what I've found is quite enough yet to satisfy NBOOK, but it's close. MCE89 (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Rubin, Jeff (2005-05-30). "Enjoy Conservative Books at the Beach". Human Events. Vol. 61, no. 19. pp. 400–401. EBSCOhost 17296644.
  The review notes: "In his new book, Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder, he lays it on the line: "You will not have a nation," he says, "unless you awaken to the reality that America has become pacified; America has become feminized; and America is being compromised from without and within. You cannot let them get away with this. Can America be saved? Is it too late? I believe that with God's will and with your determination to confront the mental disorder of liberalism whenever and wherever it is found, America can both survive and thrive." In this book, he shows how. In this third installment of his bold, biting and bestselling trilogy, Savage offers provocative and practical ways to reclaim our social, political and cultural integrity. Through a compelling narrative of current trends and events, Savage chronicles the continued assault on the sacred pillars of American life (the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Ten Commandments, the Sanctity of Marriage) by the High Priests of Ultra-Liberalism. In each chapter, the Savage Spotlight of Truth casts its brilliant light on the tactics used by liberals to spread their leftist agenda. Savage follows his analysis with specific actions, arguments and recommendations for action that the reader can ingest to counter the radical left."
2. Sanders, Ken (2005). "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder by Michael Savage". Z Magazine. pp. 56–57. Retrieved 2025-05-24 – via Google Books.
  The review notes: "Want support with that accusation? You're reading the wrong book. Savage's ludicrous hyperbole is offensive not only to those who consider themselves liberal (a term which, by the way, Savage never defines), it is likely offensive to anyone who survived or lost loved ones in Hitler's holocaust. ... In Chapter One , "More Patton , Less Patent Leather," Savage blames liberals and their " trickle-down PC stupidity" for Bush's debacle in Iraq. Savage quotes "one lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless," as advising his troops on the eve of battle to "tread lightly" in Iraq because of its historical and cultural significance. For Savage, this nameless lieutenant colonel typifies how "liberalism has so warped the sensibilities of Mr. and Mrs. America," that Bush got "trapped trying to fight a politically correct war." There is (at least) one problem with Savage's example of liberalism's weakening U.S. military resolve: the "lieutenant colonel who shall remain nameless" was none other than Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins, commanding officer of the First Battalion of the Royal Irish ..."
3. "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder". AudioFile. April–May 2006. Archived from the original on 2025-05-24. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The review notes: "Reader Mark Warner clearly understands Savage's style and seeks to represent it as closely as possible. Warner comes close to capturing Savage's outrage, irony, and humor, but he doesn't capture it completely. Nevertheless, Warner's reading is clear and even-paced."
4. "Fools' gold: As America becomes more polarised, its political writing is getting worse". The Economist. 2005-10-06. Archived from the original on 2024-04-20. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: "An altogether less agreeable polemicist is Michael Savage, whose latest book is called “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. He calls homosexual activists “brown shorts” and thinks Mr Bush has messed up by not killing nearly enough people in Iraq. He believes that the United Nations and other shadowy international groups are planning to “over-ride our democracy” and replace the Bill of Rights with “a new, watered-down bill of wrongs from the new, ruling bureaucrats”. He wonders why Republican leaders have not warned people about this. He uses the term “village idiots” to describe a body—the Democratic Leadership Council—whose name he cannot spell."
5. Graff, Amy (2020-02-14). "The most commonly stolen book at the San Francisco Public Library may surprise you". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2024-07-23. Retrieved 2025-05-24.
  The article notes: ""The one author our head of collections has to check regularly and purchase new copies of our books by Michael Savage," library spokesperson Kate Patterson wrote in an email. "We check once a year to see if all the copies are gone and reorder. We have moved to e-book for most of them, so we can ensure copies are around. The main title that disappears quickly is 'Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder.'" ... Released in April 2005, 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder' was on the New York Times best-seller list for three weeks and "attacks the insanities and inanities of extreme leftist thought.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Earl Emmons

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

The subject receives WP:SIGCOV in only one very specialist regional reliable source, Pacific Coast Architecture Database. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources, in practice this means at least two. Following an online search, no further reliable sources, even at a regional level, giving significant coverage have emerged. --Boynamedsue (talk) 00:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for me the second Google result is a reported obituary in the Los Angeles Times.[59]. Work in the LA County Museum of Art[60] Jahaza (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza:In the UK that result isn't showing up. I suspect there might be some kind of google geoblock going on for the LA Times. Perhaps due to that business a few years back where US websites weren't meeting EU data protection standards?

That source strengthens the case for WP:SIGCOV, but aren't obituaries sometimes paid for in US papers? The fact it only contains interviews with family members is something of a red flag. Could you have a look and see if there is anything else a-couple-of-paragraph-length or longer coming from an LA paper specifically devoted to Emmons and his work rather than his death? If there is I think I should be able to withdraw.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see additional sources [61], Eichler: Modernism Rebuilds the American Dream pp. 118-19, and Sunnylands: Art and Architecture of the Annenberg Estate in Rancho Mirage, California p. 5. A difficult one because there's not nothing, but there's not a whole lot, either. I have no opinion since it's possible to make arguments in either direction here, would delete if I had to pick between keep or delete just because GNG might be but is not clearly established. SportingFlyer T·C 04:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My view was that those two did not give sigcov.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]