Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 10	May 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Bhanga Government Pilot High School

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

Simply existing does not make a school notable. The current article only has one reference, and that reference is to a spreadsheet by the Bangladesh Ministry of Education (list of secondary schools in Bangladesh). This source confirms that this is an actual school in Bangladesh, but upon search, there doesn't seem to be any reliable, secondary coverage about the subject that would contribute to WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhairab K. B. Pilot Model High School

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

Subject does not appear to be notable - plainly existing does not make a school notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Begumganj Government Pilot High School

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

School does not appear to be notable per WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Only reference is a source of a list of secondary schools by the Bangladeshi Ministry of Education which proves that the school is an actual legible school - but simply existing does not make a school notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the previous AFD discussion last year, I've still yet to see reliable independent sources verify this person's general "notability". From re-reading the previous AFD discussion, two "oppose" (i.e. "keep") votes were based on appearing on (or their "love" for ~~her~~) on Survivor. Another editor suggested "draftify"-ing. However, those rationales have yet to change my views about her notability, especially when a draft wouldn't be improved much over time.

I have sought reliable independent sources verifying her notability for appearing on The Challenge. Instead, I found just primary sources, like her Entertainment Weekly interview and a People magazine excessively quoting her (looks more like an interview in a prose format). Sure, she probably meets WP:NENT for appearing in Survivor and The Challenge multiple times total. Also, her "winner" status in Survivor: Kaôh Rōng and "runner-up" status in Survivor: Winners at War may have helped further.

However, per WP:BIOSPECIAL, she also must meet basic criteria of a notable person, and meeting WP:ENTE would not be enough as much as WP:NBASIC. central criterio of WP:NBIO. I could not find reliable sources verifying her overall/general notability and notability of her pre- and post-Survivor/Challenge activities. Not only the above rules, WP:BIO1E (if not WP:BLP1E), WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NRVE, WP:SUSTAINED, and/or WP:FAILN should also apply. If others, like me, find her notable for only being a Survivor winner, then the article should be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, her debut season. George Ho (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC); corrected, 05:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Mifflefunt. 00:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Branny Schepanovich

AfDs for this article:

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim.
As always, unsuccessful candidates for political office are not notable on that basis per se, and get articles only if they can be properly demonstrated to have established notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway -- but this basically just says that he had a law career without saying anything about it that would constitute a meaningful notability claim as a lawyer, and is "referenced" solely to his paid-inclusion obituary in the local newspaper rather than any meaningful reliable source coverage about him and his work.
A prior deletion discussion in 2011 landed "keep" on the grounds of claims that he had sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, but the sources brought to bear in that discussion consisted entirely of sources that namechecked him, mostly as a party spokesman providing soundbites to the media in articles about the party, rather than being about him in any meaningful sense -- but we've long since deprecated that type of sourcing as not contributing to notability, and none of it ever actually found its way into the article at all anyway.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but we need to see sources in which he's the subject of the coverage, not just sources that quote him as a spokesman, to deem him as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:NPOL and lacks WP:V. Svartner (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment he is described as a prominent Alberta Liberal and he was on the board (?) of Air Canada, however I could not find an obituary in regional newspapers as one would expect for such a "prominent" figure. It seems he was never elected in the party or party leader, but head of many internal committees. --hroest 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MJ Hibbett

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

Seems like a nice chap, but not notable.

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

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

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He went on to lead the group MJ Hibbett & the Validators. AllMusic staff written album reviews here, here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO#1. As well as the Allmusic coverage cited above, and the references presently in the article, there's an RS critical review from the BBC here, and many hits on ProQuest such as this one. ResonantDis_tortion 23:42, 2 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 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Three+ sources with SIGCOV has been identified, enough to make a page. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole White

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

WP:BLP of an activist and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria.
The attempted notability claim as a politician is that she was the first out LGBTQ candidate in a provincial election in her province, while the notability claim as an activist is that she was one of the several people who challenged Saskatchewan's marriage laws in the short time between Halpern and the Civil Marriage Act. But as always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and have to show that they were already notable for other reasons independently of the candidacy.
However, the "first LGBTQ candidate" thing is completely unreferenced and unverified (and note that we have seen more than one case in the past of people who were claimed as "first member of X minority group to do a thing" who turned out, upon investigation, to have been preceded by other people the article's creator just hadn't heard of, so we can't just take random internet users' word for it without sourcing), so that's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing — and it's questionable whether it would even be all that historically significant even if it were verifiable, given that her province had already elected at least two out LGBTQ municipal councillors (and one MLA who admittedly wasn't out at the time but came out later) before her.
Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage lawsuit is referenced solely to a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a magazine article about the overall case, rather than any significant coverage devoted specifically to her own personal role in it, and the rest of the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. And, for added bonus, none of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit have Wikipedia articles at all (not even the one who was also one of the city councillors whose time in office preceded White's campaign), and this article does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that White was somehow more individually notable than any of the others. And even on a WP:BEFORE search, about all I can find is a small blip of WP:BLP1E coverage upon her recent reception of an award that still isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant notability freebie in and of itself on a person who's otherwise poorly sourced.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep it seems this is the same person that got this award? It seems just this Governor General's Awards would make her pass GNG. It also seems like she is notable for In 2021, Nicole’s tireless advocacy during her pregnancy resulted in the removal of the requirement for parents to be biologically related to be listed on their child’s birth certificate, aptly named “Alice’s Law” in honour of her daughter. I also think the profile in Sasktoday is enough for WP:RS. --hroest 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG requires quite a bit more than just one reliable source, and the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case is not the same thing as the high-level Governor General's Awards in literature or the performing arts. It would be a valid notability claim if the article were well-sourced, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this is the same person [1], but it alone isn't enough for notability. Rest of the sources now in the article aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I did some further analysis on this subject and the main news stories over the last few years: [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9][10][11] and of these I believe the following have WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS:

three in-depth profiles, one of which is the subject (CBC)

in depth profile in CKOM

In-depth profile in Sasktoday

-- overall I see 10 news articles in RS that quote her / interview her of which there are three which contain in-depth profiles of her specifically. Together with the awards, three good sources and a bunch of other mentions/interviews should be more than enough for GNG. --hroest 12:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people can show enough local human interest coverage in their own hometown media to claim that they passed WP:GNG, without actually having any meaningful notability claim that would be expected to enshrine them in an international encyclopedia for posterity — so GNG doesn't just count the number of media hits you can find on a person, and also takes into account the context of what that coverage is being given for. Sources that quote or interview her, for example, are not support for notability, per WP:INTERVIEWS, so most of those links aren't doing anything to help — and of the three you identified as the most substantive, they amount to local human interest coverage in Saskatoon, and aren't supporting anything that would constitute a nationalized or internationalized notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not claim notability beyond her province, however there is no requirement for national prominence to pass WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable media which means we have the basis to write an article about her that is based on solid information. Here we have three relatively high quality and in-depth profiles of her in reputable outlets. Furthermore, it is clear that she had a significant role to play in the advancement of LGBTQ rights in her province, being at the core of 2 legal battles for civil rights. Personally I find that interesting and worthy of preservation for the future. --hroest 21:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Sasktoday article is the best of the profiles provided by hroest. There is no question that the subject is interesting, but interesting is not sufficient for a stand-alone page. Also, passing WP:GNG is "not a guarantee" and "editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page." --Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the coverage identified above by hroest, I've so far found coverage of her in newspapers from states other than Saskatchewan, from 2004-2021, including a profile in the Ottawa Citizen in 2013 [12], as well as coverage in Alberta and Toronto newspapers of her work getting donations of menstrual supplies to northern Saskatchewan communities and coverage in BC and Ontario of her same-sex marriage case. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:08, 10 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!} 23:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate sufficient notability per GNG. Mifflefunt. 00:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solinas prime

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

This appears to be a made up name and topic. Of the sources that have ever appeared in the article, it is attested to only in sources that trace the name back to this Wikipedia article, via https://oeis.org/A165255 . This is true both of the original topic of the article (primes of the form $2^{a}\pm 2^{b}\pm 1$ ) and the new topic (as of this complete rewrite from 2017). The PROD was removed by an IP who pointed to [13], a work by Solinas that does not use the name "Solinas prime". Any encyclopedic content from the sources without the hoax name could be included at Mersenne_prime#Generalizations (which already cites this source). JBL (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment it seems there are a few mentions of this concept in the literature, e.g. [14] (I dont know how reputable Journal of Signal Processing Systems is but it seems reasonable to me) but most of the other ones are IEEE and abstracts, maybe someone with more training in mathematics could look whether this name is accepted in pure maths circles. It seems that at least some reviewers are not objecting to the name in engineering / signal processing. --hroest 16:30, 5 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!} 23:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hex (professional wrestling)

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

No notable tag team. Worked on independent level, no enough in-deep coverage from reliable sources, just WP:ROUTINE results [15] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uğurcan Karagöz

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

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

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

Keep. Only fails WP:NCURLING because we could never come up a criteria for the World Championships. But not only has Karagöz played at the World Championships, he was the skip (captain) of the Turkish team. I would imagine there must be some Turkish language sources that cover him.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of which have been identified, because it doesn't exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 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!} 23:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon R. Jones

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

Rando political candidate. Barebones news coverage, no argument for notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article on Brandon R. Jones clearly meets Wikipedia's WP:POLITICIAN notability guideline. He is a declared Republican candidate for Governor of California in 2026, which alone establishes presumed notability due to the high-level nature of the race. In addition, the subject has significant coverage in reliable, independent sources including PR Newswire, KBAK/FOX58, Imperial Valley Press, and Ballotpedia. These sources discuss both his candidacy and policy proposals, such as his well-documented Obliterate State Income Tax plan and RESTORE California platform. The subject has also published a policy book (California’s Comeback) and been featured in local news outlets during his campaign events, further supporting notability per WP:GNG. While the article may benefit from improved sourcing and categorization, it is a clear Keep based on existing Wikipedia standards. – ~~~~ Rakeshkumar693 (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Rakeshkumar693 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Comment I have a sneaking suspicion that this comment may be what it seems... Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 10:17, 12 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 delete G5‎. UtherSRG (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dragas Dempa

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of blogs, unreliable sources, and paid media. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:39, 11 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.

Extratime.com

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

This article doesn't seem very notable, see WP:WEBSITE. I could not find many independent sources about this website. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 22:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Websites, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I am little unsure, but mine is a very weak keep, the website is popular and seems viable for an article. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexious Lee

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

Not finding significant coverage as required by WP:NBASIC. Most of the articles I'm finding are about other topics that mention him. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 20:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

García Ximénez of Sobrarbe

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

This three-sentence article is better as a redirect to Kingdom of Sobrarbe. As the article itself says, essentially no biographical information exists on this mythological figure; he's notable only as the supposed first king of Sobarbe. — Moriwen (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Mythology, and Spain. — Moriwen (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Srnec (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Roth (Government official)

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

Subject clearly fails NPOL and a search for sources yielded nothing useful. Bar for GNG is not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the above appears true this may be the same subject as discussed in this article/report, about being inducted into the New York State Senate Veterans Hall of Fame. This, on its own, likely doesn't confere notability but may give further avenues to pursue when looking for notability (such as their military career). Emily.Owl (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitor Reis (disambiguation)

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

This was the result of a rename, but it created an unnecessary 2 link DAB. Since there was an existing discussion that led to this rename, I didn't want to PROD - but this should be uncontroversial WP:ONEOTHER Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ivey (talk - contribs) 20:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fool's Gold (One Direction song)

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

No independent articles about the song itself. Only mention is by one of the songwriters Jamie Scott. Not notable to warrant a article on its on. Chart positions do not make a song notable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Four (One Direction album). Despite charting, most of the references are about the album, not the song itself (although there are some references specifically about the song). Still, the WP:NSONG criteria is not met. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 20:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Robert Fudge

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

Not notable per WP:BIO1E. The disaster where Mr Fudge provided aid was not particularly notable, and Mr Fudge appears to be otherwise a low-profile private individual. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Canada. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete barely any sources and they only cover the one event no coverage exists for anything else about him Scooby453w (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article simply isn't necessary. Info doesn't need to be anywhere outside of Cross of Valour. Leonstojka (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is Canada’s highest award for bravery, only 20 have been awarded in its 53 year history. If any Canadian should have their own Wikipedia entry, no matter how insignificant the rest of their lives were, its these 20 heroes. Capnwilly (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fudge and the other 19 recipients per Capnwilly. This is the civilian equivalent of the Medal of Honor, and the MOH is an automatic keep. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"automatic keep" so lets just ignore the permstub article... at most that argument could be used for a rederict argument there is nothing in the article that cant be handled somewhere else Scooby453w (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Filatov (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable promotional page from PR-account. Obvious violation WP:PAID. Кронас (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding reliable, independent coverage that is not routine information about changes in business leadership or similar. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxycation

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

No sources have been identified that make this topic notable. (Attempt at PROD was removed but no sources were added). Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Not a group of ions that I really see discussed as a such a broad group, and sources discussing them as such are difficult to find at the very least. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep as this could be a set index or list article; and there are multiple independent sources that show this is notable: eg^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

^ Bractecki, A.; Dembicka, D. (January 1969). "Structure and properties of oxycations. IV. Spectroscopic studies on complex compounds with some organophosphorus ligands". Inorganica Chimica Acta. 3: 59–64. doi:10.1016/S0020-1693(00)92447-2.
^ Ortolano, T. R.; Selbin, J.; McGlynn, S. P. (1 July 1964). "Electronic Structure, Spectra, and Magnetic Properties of Oxycations. V. The Electronic Spectra of Some Vanadyl Complexes". The Journal of Chemical Physics. 41 (1): 262–268. doi:10.1063/1.1725631.
^ Barbosa, Luis Antonio M. M.; van Santen, Rutger A. (1 December 2003). "Study of the Activation of C−H and H−H Chemical Bonds by the [ZnOZn] 2+ Oxycation: Influence of the Zeolite Framework Geometry". The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 107 (51): 14342–14349. doi:10.1021/jp030394r.
^ Madan, S.K.; Donohue, A.M. (May 1966). "Co-ordination compounds of oxycations thorium (IV) and molybdenum (V) with 2,2′-bipyridine-1,1′-dioxide". Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry. 28 (5): 1303–1311. doi:10.1016/0022-1902(66)80458-X.

Delete. Not a group with much of a presence in the chemical literature. Of the four references given by the anonymous editor immediately above, three are extremely old, and one is just old. No evidence that this is a notable classification (unlike, say, oxyanion). Athel cb (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly discussed in plenty of academic sources, as a look on Google Scholar shows. That many of such sources are old is irrelevant to notability; if obsolete then the concept needs to be historically discussed (such as cyclol, another obsolete chemical concept) but that's another matter.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niall J. English

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

Biographical article not shown to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Even ignoring the WP:UPE/WP:SOCKing behaviours associated with article's creation (kinda hard to do TBH), my own WP:BEFORE hasn't surfaced sufficient independent sources to support the text of this title (even basics like DOB, POB, etc are unsupported). Not to mind a claim to notability. In terms of WP:GNG, all the biographical sources in the title are either clearly associated with the subject (including two biographical entries from websites associated with the subjects employer, and one interview which doesn't contribute to notability) or ROTM press reporting on a short-lived legal dispute (between the subject and his employer?). A WP:BEFORE search, in national news sources in Ireland, do not return any additional coverage. In short: in the Irish Independent stable of national and regional titles we find a passing mention of the legal case (and nothing else but false positives). On RTÉ news sites we find nothing for variants of subject name. Same goes for Irish Examiner - nothing for either variant.. In the Irish Times the only mentions I can find are the same two sources we find in the article. Nothing more for either variant. While I will admit to not being as familiar with how to apply WP:NACADEMIC, the subject appears to hold a fairly "normal" lecturer/professor role, isn't a named chair or dean or whatever, doesn't appear to be an elected member of a particularly notable scholarly society, and has the same Google Scholar "cited by" stats we might expect for any other working academic/researcher. Am I missing something? If someone hadn't seemingly been WP:PAID to create this article, would it have been created organically - because the subject clearly meets an applicable NBIO criteria? }} Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I looked at this some time ago, as it was associated with some now-blocked accounts with a pretty clear pattern of socking. I brought some of the other articles created by the sock ring to AfD, but did not bring this one. The citation record is reasonably strong as far as WP:NPROF goes, although I believe this to be a higher citation field. The dispute covered by the Irish Times is a WP:BLP1E in addition to only being covered by one reliable source, but it might give some support to an NPROF case. The combination makes me lean a little bit towards keep, if one disregards the paid editing. As far as that goes: while there is some marginal notability, I find it somewhat unlikely that a disinterested editor would choose this person to write an article on. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. Scott Morris

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

The subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for people (WP:BIO). The article relies primarily on local and affiliated sources, lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, and fails to demonstrate lasting impact or recognition beyond a regional context. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sperry

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet notability criteria for entertainers per notability guidelines for people (WP:BIO), and the article lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

AfDs for this article:

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

Binkley hasn't recieved notable coverage outside of his campaign, as far as I can tell. Even the campaign coverage was mostly routine and the votes he recieved make clear that his campaign wasn't notable Esolo5002 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I can't grasp how this discussion was started despite the overwhelming evidence raised at the last AfD that indicates notability extending over multiple aspects of this individual. Even if you want to discount that the prolonged and significant coverage of Binkley's campaign does not extend notability to him as an individual, you have to accept that it does indicate notability of his campaign. Beyond this, multiple discussions established that there were substantial indications of notability beyond campaign coverage. Binkley's work as a pastor, M&A consultant, and restaurant franchise owner have all received coverage independent from his campaign. I would encourage Esolo5002 to withdraw this nomination expeditiously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree very strongly with this reading of the last AFD, especially because two different discussions ended in deletions relatively recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those two deletion discussions closed with different outcomes because 1.) less coverage had actually occurred up to that point and 2.) there was a lack of awareness regarding the other sources of this subject's notability. The latter discussion clearly indicates that what had previously been a consensus towards deletion had overwhelming shifted to a consensus to keep. For many subjects, this is the natural progression of things. Your rationale for deletion is objectively false, looking solely at the sources in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a corollary to all this, see Talk:Ryan Binkley#Requested move 25 February 2024, which directly addresses the question of notability beyond the campaign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources currently in the article

1-Probably is good enough

2-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

3-Routine campaign announcement

4-Not a news article

5-Routine campaign announcement

6-Routine campaign announcement

7-More in-depth campaign coverage

8-Press release

9-More in-depth campaign coverage

10-Couldn't access but doesn't appear to be about Binkley enough to help his notability

11-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

12-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

13-Interview

14-Routine campaign announcement

15-Routine campaign announcement

16-More in-depth campaign coverage

17-Press release

18-Routine campaign coverage

19-Routine campaign coverage

20-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

21-Routine campaign coverage

22-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

23-Tweet

24-Routine campaign coverage

25-Doesn't even mention him

26-Routine campaign coverage

27-In-depth campaign coverage

28-Not a news article

29-Doesn't even mention him

30-Live blog

31-In-depth campaign coverage

32-In-depth campaign coverage

33-Live blog (and even if it wasn't, not enough for notability)

34-Not a news article

35-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

36-Literally has nothing to do with Binkley (I will remove this source after I'm done with this reply)

37-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

38-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)

39-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot, also Newsweek is not reliable)

40-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

41-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

42-In-depth campaign coverage

43-Not a news article

44-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability

45-Routine campaign coverage

46-Couldn't access, probably routine campaign coverage

47-Does not appear to be a reliable source, looks like a tabloid

48-Press release

One source is good enough for notability. Even in the in-depth campaign sources go on about nobody has ever heard of this guy. Lots of people run for President, some people have enough to get on the ballot, that doesn't mean they are notable. The Nevada coverage is so funny in hindsight because he was the only other person on the ballot, and got less than 1% of the vote. There is just not enough here for him to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more sources available now then the last time this article was kept, and notability is not temporary. Jahaza (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Wächter

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

Non-notable footballer. Searching for sources only produces player profiles and routine coverage of football matches. TheBritinator (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. TheBritinator (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think 91 Bundesliga games would have brought about SIGCOV... BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd expect there will be sources, btw did you even look at de:Stefan Wächter (Fußballspieler, 1978) or it:Stefan Wächter?? A little routine on the sources. But for me, maybe enough for a weak keep. Govvy (talk) 18:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did. It didn't particularly convince me of his notability. TheBritinator (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the subject's career their notability shouldn't be in question. Here are two longer articles I found through a quick web search: [16] from Die Welt, [17] from Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—per above. This is admittedly very odd, though, as I would absolutely expect there to be far more coverage on a player with more than 90 top tier appearances. Anwegmann (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles available online which makes person notable footballer. Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Robby.is.on WP:BEFORE. Svartner (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navneet Singh (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Mostly promotional articles, passing mentions, and interviews. The available "significant coverage" (the DNAIndia article, for example) is of dubious independence/reliability. Mooonswimmer 18:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you retract the above comment; see WP:ASPERSIONS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im sry guys,have written like 5 articles since morning and i took good care that i use proper sources and I DID.I dunno what this dude saw in my article.There were some poorly sourced references and he removed them,rather then deleting it i askdd him to tell me what to improve there.Again,I'm sry Thatonewikipediadude (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 20:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here's a quick rundown of the sources used in the article.

FE Lifestyle (The Financial Express) - appears to be independent, but no author listed and there's a lot of promotional language/adjectives going on.
Weekend Leader - Seemingly independent profile
CXO Today - interview, does not contribute to notability
DNA India - Seemingly independent profile
TechGraph - interview
BW Businessworld - link redirects to main webpage, cannot find page saved on the Wayback Machine
The Economic Times "startup ranking" - 404 error, not archived on Wayback Machine
FICCI - 404 error, not archived on Wayback Machine
The Economic Times "women..." - passing mention, does not support statement in article

ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well accr to me its good enough but if yall insist,can we mark it as stub? Thatonewikipediadude (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thatonewikipediadude (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.191.102 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote, since this is clearly the author voting while logged out. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:48, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired this nomination to reflect that it is for Navneet Singh (entrepreneur), not Navneet Singh(Entrepreneur). That was the original name for this article, but it was renamed 14 minutes before it was nominated (but presumably, since this was a Twinkle-assisted nomination, while the nominator was preparing it). The original title was deleted via R2, which made it seem like the article had already been deleted itself when it had not been (and also could have theoretically been mistaken for a misplaced RfD, but it is clear the nomination is for the actual article). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lodaya (train)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huijiwiki

(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} 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources I found were passing mentions and unreliable sources. Huijiwiki (simplified Chinese: 灰机wiki; traditional Chinese: 灰機wiki; lit. 'Gray Machine Wiki') does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or not reliable enough. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for websites. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Huijiwiki is cited in multiple papers:

吕明芳 (2019). 功能对等视角下游戏本地化翻译策略探讨与反思 ——以游戏《文明Ⅵ》为例 [A Study and Reflection on Game Localization Translation Strategies from the Perspective of Functional Equivalence -- Taking the Game "Civilization VI" as an Example] (Thesis). Beijing Foreign Studies University. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

杨玲 (2018). 《临高启明》与当代幻想文学中的世界建构 [The World Construction of Lingao Qiming and Contemporary Fantasy Literature]. 济宁学院学报. 39 (1): 51–56. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

刘显. 科幻小说《三体》及改编作品的故事世界研究 [A Study on the Story World of the Science Fiction Novel The Three-Body Problem and its Adaptations] (Thesis). Retrieved 2025-05-01.

郭小嘉 (2022). 论《三体Ⅱ·黑暗森林》日译本的文化意象传递 [On the Transmission of Cultural Images in the Japanese Translation of The Three-Body Problem II: The Dark Forest] (Thesis). 黑龙江大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王昊岚 (2023). MMORPG及其演变分析 ——以《最终幻想》系列为例 [Analysis of MMORPG and Its Evolution -- Taking the Final Fantasy Series as an Example] (Thesis). 天津大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王依婷 (2021-11-19). "zh:审美认同与孙悟空视觉形象的海外流布" [Aesthetic Identity and the Overseas Spread of the Visual Image of Sun Wukong]. 中外文论2021. “跨文化视野下文艺理论批评前沿问题”研讨会暨中国中外文艺理论学会第18届年会. Guilin. pp. 135–150. doi:10.26914/c.cnkihy.2021.083048. Retrieved 2025-05-01. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these sources 内存溢出的猫 (talk · contribs). Do these sources merely cite Huijiwiki, or do they also discuss Huijiwiki "directly and detail" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline)? Cunard (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be enough to support keeping the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Unfortunately there is no detailed introduction to huijiwiki. They either directly quote or use its content, or use it as a reference—you can tell from the titles of these articles that they are studies of fictional works.

From my personal perspective, this wiki seems to be a (relatively successful) Chinese version of Fandom, at least in terms of fan content, as they are used in journals. I guess that is because in China there lacks other popular websites for creating fandom sub-wikis. But the wiki it does lack sufficient coverage. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article reposted by the China Digital Science and Technology Museum, originally published in Science Fiction World (the oldest and most popular science fiction magazine & sci-fi book publisher of PRC):

"The 'Lord of the Rings Chinese Wiki' was founded in 2015 by Ser Gawen, the founder of HuijiWiki. Hosted on the HuijiWiki platform, it is an encyclopedia website built entirely by a self-organized group of enthusiasts, dedicated to compiling entries on everything related to J.R.R. Tolkien. The wiki's editing team aims to establish China's premier Tolkien database, providing readers with comprehensive, fact-based, and reliably sourced information. Currently, the site features over three thousand entries, generally sufficient to meet the needs for information lookup."

内存溢出的猫 (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

内存溢出的猫 (talk · contribs), thank you for your research! The coverage in Science Fiction World is a great find. I am striking my support for deletion and will be neutral for now. If there is a second source that provides significant coverage like this, I would switch to supporting retention as the website would meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an author of the article, someone who cited some would make me nominate to keep the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard

Ok, finally I found a speech given by the author of the novel Lingao Qiming at Peking University was published in the journal Internet Literature Review (ISSN: 2096-384X):

Let me also discuss how I utilize fanfiction for 'crowdsourced writing'. We specifically set up a Wikipedia-like platform called 'Lingao Qiming Huijiwiki', which contains roughly over 8 million characters of fanfiction.

吹牛者 (2017). "《临高启明》与互联网时代的写作——吹牛者在北大的讲座". 网络文学评论 (3): 40–45. Retrieved 2025-05-08. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this. The quote is a brief mention in a single sentence of Huijiwiki. Does the author discuss Huijiwiki in more detail than what has been quoted? Also, the author might not be considered independent enough from the website as the author used the website to set up a platform. Cunard (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dastan Satpayev

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

Contested draftification. The only coverage of this football player I can find are trivial announcements that he'll be joining Chelsea and run-of-the-mill stories about his scoring in particular games. The Forbes article appears to be unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Note that NFOOTY has been explicitly repealed by consensus of the community. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I already cited the most no. of sources and citations in Eng than other language versions, even more than the Kazakh version. Also included sourves from Kazakhstan FA and FC Kairat, please consider those. Chelsdog (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep International player, loads of sources on google, did you bother with a WP:BEFORE, [18], [19], [20]. Terrible nomination in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part of my nom where I said all of the sources I could find are trivial coverage or run of the mill stories about his transfer to Chelsea? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:voorts
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Forbes	WP:FORBESCON	WP:FORBESCON		? Unknown
Football Talent Scout		SPS. See about page.		✘ No
Astana Times	Independent of the subject, but not independent in the sense that this is a Kazakh-government run paper that has a vested interest in promoting Kazakhstan. See Special:PermanentLink/1059226246#Kazakh-government funded outlets.	See comment on independence.	Run-of-the-mill announcement about transfer. Not significant because participation does not equal notability.	✘ No
Vesti 1		No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	One sentence about the article subject.	✘ No
Vesti 2	?	No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	Trivial coverage about a single game.	✘ No
Vesti 3		No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	Largely trivial coverage about a single game, but tries to situate this into a potential record that the player hasn't actually broken.	? Unknown
Kazinform	English translation of press release. See following entry in chart.		Run-of-the-mill press release about moving to Chelsea.	✘ No
FC Kairat	Official team site.		Run-of-the-mill press release about moving to Chelsea.	✘ No
Chelsea Chronicle	Fan site.	~~Fan site, but claims to be run by journalists; no clear editorial standar ds].~~ Editorial standards here		? Unknown
The Standard			Run-of-the-mill story about transfer to Chelsea.	✘ No
KFF	Kazakhstan Football Federation website.		Participation is not sufficient for notability per the two RfCs noted in my nom.	✘ No
FC Kairat 2	Team website.		Two sentences and doesn't mention this player.	✘ 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}}.

Source assessment confirms that the coverage is largely based on participation. Participation-based coverage is not sufficient for notability based on the two RfCs linked to in the nom. If footy editors want that changed, they're welcome to go start another RfC at NSPORTS. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources are too trivial/routine. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
added few more sources including BBC and YAHOO News. I guess they would be notable and reliable enough? Chelsdog (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC is not significant coverage. Here's what it says about Satpayev in full: "Chelsea have also lined up a deal for Kazakh 16-year-old Dastan Satpaev, who completed a successful trial at Cobham Training Centre in recent weeks. The striker is expected to join Chelsea's academy teams from FC Kairat."
Yahoo News republishes other websites, in this case SportsView. That story is exactly the same as all of the other ones, a trivial announcement that Chelsea signed Satpayev. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Forbes, Vesti 2, and Chelsea Chronicle are decent enough to meet WP:GNG in my view. All Wikipedia articles require multiple significant coverage on reliable secondary sources. If his career with Chelsea FC does not pan out when he officially arrives there (e.g. only played a few matches), this page should be deleted. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:FORBESCON. Vesti 2 is about a single game, which per the RFCs I linked above is insufficient to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG with Kazakh sources and now after his big transfer.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Udeigwe

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

The subject of this article does not meet any criterion outlined in WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACADEMIC. The article is filled with press releases and sources not independent of him. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up significant coverage in secondary sources. Moreover, none of the subject's music has been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Prenkaj

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

Minor diplomat now working as a functionary at the UN. Almost all hits are articles written by the subject, or where he is briefly quoted giving his opinion. I did find one profile of him in local media, but that doesn't amount to passing WP:SIGCOV in general.

His previous job titles are not automatically notable, and it isn't reasonable to suggest (as the opening section does) that he was a member of the Kosovo cabinet by virtue of being a political adviser. Overall, comes across as an inadequate promo page. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Leonstojka (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem and its surroundings from the Neolithic period to the Bronze Age

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

Entirely WP:OR, poorly written and entirely unsourced essay. Not eligible for CSD and I see no scope for improvement so draftifying isn't appropriate. CoconutOctopus talk 16:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. CoconutOctopus talk 16:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you very much for your guidance — you've given me a lot of food for thought. I'm translating an article and will start over, working on it as a draft. Lookelisten (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking to move this to a draft and continuing to work on it then I'm quite happy to withdraw the deletion nomination! I was unaware it was a translation! CoconutOctopus talk 16:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the original author of the article had created a draft version they are working on, so I won't be moving this version to draft and instead will still support its deletion. CoconutOctopus talk 22:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd say this isn't suitable as a standalone article and is better handled as a section in History of Jerusalem or Archaeology of Israel. Mooonswimmer 18:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete This really sounds like someone's incomplete term paper, not an encyclopedia article. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Birdsall

AfDs for this article:

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

Not satisfied he meets WP:NAUTHOR as his work has not been widely reviewed (the best I found was a 1996 review of his first book in Kirkus). Search his name and you quickly run into other people called Ben Birdsall, so I'm not convinced he meets the WP:GNG criteria either.

The article was also created by a single purpose account that is very likely to be the man himself, hence the chunks of text that are uncited. In other words, this is a poorly sourced promo. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tagged as 'artist' due to painting career Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Leadbetter, Russell (2016-06-10). "Whisky galore! Or: one man's distillery tour on a 50cc Vespa". The Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12.
  The review notes: "Ben Birdsall arrived on his loaded-up Vespa on Jura and met a couple of strangers sitting outside a hotel. ... West Yorkshire-born Birdsall had many such encounters on his Vespa-borne travels round Arran, Kintyre, Islay, Jura, Mull, Skye, the west and central Highlands, Speyside and, finally, the east Highlands and Orkney. He has now poured his writings, photographs and paintings of that trip into a rather nice book. ... Birdsall, who is 49, lives with his wife and daughter in Winterthur, a city in the Swiss canton of Zurich, where he teaches English "and paint and write in my spare time". Having written a book about his travels round Tuscany by Vespa, he originally envisaged his Scottish project as a painting trip with a few distilleries thrown in, but the idea gradually evolved in favour of the distilleries."
2. Deering, Paul (1995-07-19). "How Sligo roots inspired novelist". The Sligo Champion. p. 21. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "A young Englishman of Irish descent who has links with Dromore West has had his first novel, set in Connemara published. Indeed, for author Ben Birdsall (28) it was the beauty of the West of Ireland and his summer and Christmas holidays spent here that drew him to put pen to paper. ... His novel, Blue Charm, is published by Blackstaff and is the story of one man's renewal through the joys, strangeness and humour of country life. Charged with the hidden rhythms and resonances of a fading Gaelic way of life, the novel catches a twilight society poised between a haunted past and an unsteady future. ... While the main character has an interest in art, so too has Ben, so much so that painting plays just as big a part in his life as writing. ... After leaving Durham University, Ben spent some years working on his uncle's farm in the Dromore West area but in the last two years he has been living in Tuscany, Italy, studying the Renaissance artists and painting their landscapes. ... Writing is certainly in the Birdsall blood. Ben's father, James has published two successful volumes of memoirs ... Timothy Birdsall, Ben's uncle, reached fame through his cartoon ... Ben's early writing career had a bit of a chequered history. In 1985 while a pupil at Sedbergh School, Cumbria, his play The Happiest Days the story of a revolt in a boys' school was banned before it was due to be performed on Open Day on the grounds that it was unsuitable for parents. A year later, Ben began reading English Literature at Durham University and his first attempt at a novel, The Wanderings of a Buadno-Marxist, was published in the student magazine."
3. DD (1995-09-24). "What lies between the covers". Sunday Tribune. p. 20. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  This is a book review of Blue Charm by Ben Birdsall published by The Blackstaff Press. The review notes: "This may be the worst book on Ireland ever written. What condemns it is not the mistaken belief that the quality of the writing can disguise the absence of a plot; it is not Birdsall's conceit that he is accurately representing a little piece of Ireland; it is, rather, the brass neck of the publishers in thinking that they can pass off such a blatant piece of Paddywhackery as literature that really gets up the nose. When Birdsall confines himself to descriptions of nature or places he is quite a nice writer. However he is determined to make quite a large section of people in the West fit the faith and begorrah, fairy-believing cliche so beloved of much of the English middle-classes. ... Blue Charm is a joke, made worse by Birdsall's patronising treatment of the people to whom he purports to be strongly attached."
4. Relich, Mario (1987-08-28). "Festival Review: Around the Fringe". The Scotsman. p. 9. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The review notes: "Staggart Lane: Collingwood Catdaddy Codpieces. This meandering new play by Ben Birdsall, an undergraduate from Durham University, has some very effective moments. There can be no doubt, as well, that the playwright shows great potential, but the smarties handed out to the audience at Masonic Lodge, Hill Street were easier to digest than the to find life meaningless, and therefore recklessly waste it. This theme is explored through an anti-hero who has problems with drugs. But he is prevented from facing what has made him an addict in the first place by officiously well-meaning do gooders who queue up to save him. These include, among others, an aerobic Christian, and an implacable Buddhist—both richly comic cameo roles."
5. "Festival date for Yorks playwright". Telegraph & Argus. 1987-08-27. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Edinburgh's famous Fringe Festival will next week be the venue of a new play by young Keighley writer Ben Birdsall. The play, Staggart Lane will be performed at the festival renowned as an outlet for new theatrical talents from August 24 to 29 at the Masonic Lodge Theatre. Now at Durham University, Ben, of Cross Hills, was a pupil at South Craven School before going to Sedburgh."
6. "Author is nominated for literary award". Craven Herald & Pioneer. 1996-04-19. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The first novel by Cross Hills writer Ben Birdsall has been nominated for a top literary prize. Blue Charm is one of five books shortlisted for the Author's Club First Novel Award. The prize is given annually to the writer of the most promising first novel published in the United Kingdom. ... Educated at Glusburn and South Craven Schools and later at Sedbergh, Ben gained a BA Hons degree in English language and literature at Durham University. Being of Anglo-Irish origin, he returns regularly to his family home in County Sligo, and has formed a deep attachment to the West of Ireland and its peo-ple. Indeed, his novel Blue Charm is based in County Galway."
7. "Cross Hills: Author was thwarted during 'Happiest Days' but now he is in print at last. Novel success for Ben". Telegraph & Argus. 1995-07-21. Archived from the original on 2025-05-12. Retrieved 2025-05-12 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "It is ten years since Ben Birdsall's first attempt at writing was thwarted by cautious teachers at his school. His play The Happiest Days, which told the story of a revolt in a boys' school, was banned from performance at Sedbergh School, North Yorkshire, because it was felt to be unsuitable for parents. Now the Keighley author is celebrating seeing his first novel in print. Blue Charm, which paints a vivid picture of life in Connemara, Ireland, has just been published by Belfast-based Blackstaff Press. ... His literary interest grew at Durham University where he read English Literature. His first attempt at a novel — The Wanderings of a Buddho-Marxist — was published in extracts in the student magazine Inprint. In his last year at Durham he wrote a dissertation on his own work."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ben Birdsall to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sulekha Ali

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is two "hit" singles not supported by any verifiable evidence that either song ever actually charted on any IFPI-certified charts — but since music promoters have a tendency to indiscriminately ascribe "hit" status to any song that an artist wants to highlight in their PR kit, we can't just take the word "hit" as a notability lock in and of itself without proper sourcing for it. But otherwise, this is strictly on the level of "she is a musician who exists", and is supported solely by a single deadlinked article on Digital Journal, a user-generated "citizen journalism" platform where anybody can submit any self-created public relations "news" they want to, which thus doesn't count as GNG-building coverage — and even if we ignored all that and accepted it anyway, it would still take more than just one source to pass GNG regardless.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable without much better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Wildberger

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

Math BLP which was converted in 2022 by David Eppstein to a redirect to a book by Norman Wildberger. Redirect replaced by Ad Huikeshoven by one paragraph on the book, plus a cite to a YouTube page (dubious as a RS). Time for some extra eyes on the question of whether to enforce the (implicitly contested) prior redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. Wildberger or his employer have put out some heavily promotional and dubiously accurate press releases about his publications and the latest one that this is based on is just that, an inaccurate press release that some credulous sources have picked up (for a long but unusable on Wikipedia discussion see https://mathstodon.xyz/@johncarlosbaez/114448643735756913). It does not contribute to WP:PROF notability and does not constitute in-depth independent sourcing. Repeating its promotional claims, which are not supported by his publication nor by mainstream mathematics, cannot be the basis of a good article. For another thing, although the paper itself is not out of the mainstream (neither in content nor in its publication venue), the claims made for it in the press release and copied into our article ("solving the world's oldest problem!") are WP:FRINGE and non-mainstream, as are Wildberger's own expressed personal beliefs. Fringe sources require mainstream balance to achieve properly neutral coverage and we don't have that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia, Canada, California, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as in status quo. I do not think that the regurgitated press release from unreliable or semireliable sources adds much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I edited the article. The reference to the book is removed. Wildberger is in the news for a recently published article on another subject than the controversial book. I added multiple newssources. I removed promotional claim. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think removing the reference to the one indisputably-notable accomplishment of Wildberger, his book, is an improvement to the article? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with David Eppstein. Without the book there is zero notability here, one paper that was published a few days ago is definitely not a pass of any notability criteria. Notability might be via a math paper which had 200 cites in other refereed articles in its first year following publication (an illustrative number). Ldm1954 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect All of the sources about the recent paper look to be pretty much trash. Newsweek has been a worthless rag for what, ten, twelve years now? And the rest are random websites basically reprinting a press release. The only actually noteworthy thing he's done has been the book, so this should be a pointer to the book. 64.112.179.236 (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimgarh Fort

AfDs for this article:

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

This article's claims remain unsubstantiated under notability guidelines WP:N/ Notability and appear non-constructive due to self-referential and repetitive language, potentially skewing it into a monologic abstraction WP: Essay. Furthermore, the reliance on a singular, understated republication raises concerns about the factual verification of its entire premise, especially given the absence of information about Bhimgarh Fort within that very source. Mudsharkkiller (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and India. Mudsharkkiller (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references are available through Google Books. https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Bhimgarh+Fort%22+-wikipedia Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It may be better to just add more sources to it. Nahida 🌷 15:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a historical monument article which will help the readers to get information about the place. Just some references needs to get added.Almandavi (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Hassell

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

Non-notable businessperson lacking WP:SIGCOV. A majority of sources on his page are for his business, 15Five, and only mention Hassell in passing. The NYT article is a notice of his marriage, and appears to be the only RS available. 30Four (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sourcing I find is podcasts and interviews, nothing we can use for RS. Sources now in the article are more about the company than this person. We don't have enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. There may be an argument for creating an article about the company he founded. Leonstojka (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chak Atitha High School

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

School does not appear to be notable. There is only one source, and it is to a online encyclopedia in Bangladesh. Doesn't seem to be any reliable, secondary coverage about the school. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Somajyoti ✉ 16:38, 11 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 procedural close‎. Superseded by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhimgarh Fort (2nd nomination), which was created a few minutes later by the same editor. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimgarh Fort

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

This article's claims remain unsubstantiated under notability guidelines WP:N/ Notability and appear non-constructive due to self-referential and repetitive language, potentially skewing it into a monologic abstraction WP: Essay. Furthermore, the reliance on a singular, understated republication raises concerns about the factual verification of its entire premise, especially given the absence of information about Bhimgarh Fort within that very source. Mudsharkkiller (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Jammu and Kashmir. Mudsharkkiller (talk) 14:35, 11 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.

T. Frederick Candlyn

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

Organist and choirmaster. No significant coverage in secondary sources and I don't see how his role at St Thomas Episcopal makes him automatically notable.

Worth mentioning that even within the limited category of organists who took an external music degree at Durham University, Candlyn does not compare that well to others e.g. I don't think he was ever a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists, a full professor of music, or the recipient of a government award (like Order of the British Empire, or an American equivalent) Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Imam Ali High School and College

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

The article was AfD'd back in 2012, where Wikipedia notability standards were far lower and the main consensus in that AfD was that the school is a legible high school, so therefore the school is notable. Today, that would not be the case. There doesn't seem to be reliable, secondary sources that show that the school is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and there doesn't seem to be an article worth merging into. Nahida 🌷 15:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Somajyoti ✉ 16:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Sailing

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

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

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

Keep - significant oorganization that sets a nationwide standard. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found any secondary sources that back up the claims made in the article (i.e. that it is the predominant standards bearer for sailing the Americas). World Sailing seems to be the international body that actually sets standards for the sport, and US Sailing is the member org for the united states. Article seems more promotional to direct people to schools from American sailing which I expect is how they make their money. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Glauser

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

An associate professor with a rather light career output (18 works on ORCID; 5 on Scopus); doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC and doesn't seem to have sufficient media engagement to meet WP:GNG. It also looks like an unacknowledged translation from the German article (also suggesting that we're not missing anything). Notability tagged for 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have 293 results on Swissdox, but many are false postivies for a master cheesemaker and head of the Käserei Zäziwil, whose promotion of Emmental cheese has gotten lots of coverage. On account of this cheesy interference, it will take me longer than usual to analyze the sources. Toadspike [Talk] 15:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete as he doesnt meet WP:NPROF, but seems to have some sort of public profile. However, I dont see many news articles about him (or at least dont have access in Canada) but lets see whether Toadspike can find anything more. --hroest 15:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

[21] A part-interview piece that has enough info about him to count towards the GNG. [22] [23] Plus two more with probably sigcov about him predicting the 2016 US election
It seems his doctoral thesis was edited down and published as a book, titled "Einfach blitzsauber: Die Geschichte des Staubsaugers". Yes, it is about the history of the vacuum cleaner. It was reviewed by: NZZ, 16 March 2002, "Der Staubsauger, das unbekannte Wesen" by Aiolfi S.; Berner Zeitung, later reprinted in the Neue Luzerner Zeitung, 27.10.2001, "Eine verstaubte Geschichte entstaubt", Franziska Egli; Tages-Anzeiger, "Staub als Thema", 16.10.2001, Walter Jäggi; Die Weltwoche, "Hauptsache, sauber", 11.10.2001, Benini Sandro; Le Temps, "Le grand nettoyage par le vide ou les cent ans de l'aspirateur", 29.08.2001, Isabelle Cerboneschi; and short reviews in the Solothurner Zeitung and Blick. This book is, apparently, notable.
Non-independent coverage of ArgYou [24] and a related interview [25], which has a bio of him too.
Glauser was quoted as an expert on brand image in an article in Le Temps titled "Les petits nouveaux et le storytelling", 17 June 2022, by Matthias Niklowitz – this article also appeared in the Handelszeitung in German, but I can't find either version online. Similar expert quotes of Glauser alongside sigcov of ArgYou here [26]. I've found quite a few other instances where he is quoted as an expert in a variety of papers, but I won't list them all here to save time and space.
ArgYou seems to be regularly cited as a source of data, with articles often mentioning Glauser's name as well. One example is this newswire piece from Keystone-SDA, reprinted in a bunch of papers [27].

Sorry for spamming all these links here. I haven't quite gone through all the newspaper database results (I got distracted by other stuff) but I think there's enough to keep here. Toadspike [Talk] 19:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain@Hannes Röst Would you like to take a look at the above? I think the first three sources, linked in the first bullet point, should be enough. Toadspike [Talk] 19:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look, and still not impressed, although understand if others disagree. That an internet marketing expert can get some fireside chats published in some blog-like website covered in adds doesn't seem sufficient to me for WP:GNG. The research claims made in those articles are likely to be factually true, but don't demonstrate that WP:NACADEMIC is reached. Klbrain (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which website you are referring to, but all of the sources I cited are reliable Swiss newspapers (except maybe Blick, which is a tabloid, but one with a decent reputation regardless). The level of advertising is not a measure of reliability, though if you like I can email you the print versions of nearly all of the sources I cited, which have far fewer ads. Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:AUTHOR #3. Per the book reviews for the book about vacuum cleaner history found by Toadspike, the subject should meet WP:AUTHOR, as a creator of a significant work with multiple reviews. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Arya

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

Does not meet GNG and all the sources provided are dead links Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article claims to have sources but they are all dead links making this article fail GNG Scooby453w (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elias John

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

No in depths coverage in independent media about this person. None of the awards are notable. Rest of the article talks about his positions as a journalist in different media agencies. Fails Notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, India, and Kerala. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full of uncited padding and fails WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Leonstojka (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Siliguri Mahakuma Parishad election

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

Contested prod with the comment "2022 is in the past" despite the article being about the 2027 election. Article is just a copy/paste of the 2022 election with "TBD" placed in tables where results will eventually go. Summary is about 2022 which may be the reason for the comment in the contested prod. Have not found significant coverage of future 2027 election. Most hits only bring up info about 2022 or wiki-derived sources. Fails to meet WP:GNG Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and West Bengal. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zendaya's Hat Theory

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED. At best, can be merged into main article and mentioned there. Article was AfC before possibly moved into main space without review. skovhund t 11:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. skovhund t 11:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like routine internet joke/temporary conspiracy theory. Currently lacking coverage in sustained coverage in reliable sources to deserve an article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Zendaya: not notable enough for a separate article with only one source Laura240406 (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely does not have enough coverage by WP:RS to be notable. This is just a rumour with nothing to back it. Possibly also creeping into WP:NOTGOSSIP violation. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zendaya I found another source from Teen Vouge: [28], so it is certainly worth a mention in the parent article. Jumpytoo Talk 22:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not a big enough meme to justify its own page, but enough news coverage to justify a mention on Zendaya's page BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Revell

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

Only an associate professor and does not seem to have a prolific publishing record in her field. Has published a couple of books, although I' not sure if they count as being widely reviewed (I found a few reviews, and they weren't from mainstream sources).

Basically, I wanted to invite discussion on this because I'm not convinced she passes either WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Leonstojka (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Archaeology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree that Revell likely does not meet GNG or NPROF. She has one heavily cited book Roman Imperialism and local identities but beyond that her contributions to the understanding of Roman history don't seem too significant.

Not sure if there is a better place to check for citations of books than google scholar --- my experience with using gscholar is that it often creates duplicate citations. May be convinced to switch vote if better info on citations can be found. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR (available through The Wikipedia Library) is an excellent source for citations of books. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has two fairly heavily reviewed books (plus all the reviews for her edited volume the Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain), which would generally be enough to pass the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Agree that she probably falls just short of any of the NPROF criteria though. Reviews for Roman Imperialism and Local Identities: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. Reviews for Ways of Being Roman: Discourses of Identity in the Roman West: [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. MCE89 (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revell meets WP:AUTHOR with multiple reviews of multiple books. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple reviews of multiple books listed above by MCE89 are easily enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, and provide significant coverage of Revell's work good enough for GNG. This does not even count the edited volume, which I think as a major reference work rather than a collection of research papers has greater significance than many other edited volumes, reflected in its reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think further discussion is unlikely to change the current balance of opinion so perhaps an admin should close this as speedy keep. Leonstojka (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Abex

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

Lacks Notability. Sources are either primary or in the form of press releases. There is promotional intent too. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Products, Engineering, India, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. The current references are company profiles/press releases and/or are too short. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason that this "lacks notability". The current state of the article is poor and needs better sourcing, per WP:V, but that's not the same thing. Clearly this company exists, has existed for a long time, and is substantial (market cap of >500 Crore / £4B). Given that the article was only created today, I'm in no rush to delete it on such a weak basis. Editors are always welcome to do some of the legwork here and help to expand coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply existing or existing for a long time does not automatically mean that a subject is notable. A market cap of >£4b - while quite large and impressive, does not signify coverage in reliable, secondary sources, although it is expected that there would be such. Unless further sources are presented, there is no real reason to believe that the subject is notable by means of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Jendrek

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

He only played between 10 and 17 minutes at professional level. Although this name is uncommon, the only secondary sources I found were passing mentions in match reports such as Pravda and Športky. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Tor

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only references currently in the article are primary to clubs Tor played for, and a WP:BEFORE only found some passing mentions in routine match coverage. Let'srun (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Nigeria, New York, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hernandez

(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:SPORTSCRIT. I did find [[43]], which appears to be the same person, but that piece would still be a WP:YOUNGATH failure. Let'srun (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, Football, Florida, and Massachusetts. Let'srun (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have to agree with the nominator. The article subject has not played for teams at a level that would confer automatic notability, and there is a failure of WP:SIGCOV. Leonstojka (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Sultan Midani

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a game designer and businessperson, and added an interview. The current references are two interviews, a non-independent source which mentions him in passing (fi.co), a deadlink and a site which doesn't mention this person. I cannot find more to add, although I may be missing coverage in other languages. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, Computing, and Tunisia. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Dixon

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Note that there are a bunch of people with this name. Polygnotus (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dixon is the CEO of Vice Media, a major media company. His appointment and actions as CEO have been widely reported in news media, making him meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is there no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject about Bruce Dixon? Plenty of coverage of the bankrupcy of Vice Media, nothing in-depth about Dixon as a person. Also he became co-CEO when they were bankrupt and not much was left. Hozefa Lokhandwala (the other co-CEO who left the sinking ship) is also non-notable btw. Polygnotus (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. The coverage is not on the subject as a subject, but on Vice, in which he happens to have a role that propels events. BD2412 T 20:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a human name disambiguation page, with this person being represented by a link to Vice Media. There are a few other Bruce Dixons of some note: the character Thin Man (comics), the journalist (see Black Agenda Report, 17th GLAAD Media Awards), and possibly Bruce Dixon IV, quarterback (listed in the Dartmouth Big Green starting quarterbacks template for 2016). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Housefull 6

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

Fails as per WP:NFF that clearly mentions Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Here WP:RS/sources are about Housefull 5 that will release mid of 2025. Also WP:CRYSTAL applies. Agent 007 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Agent 007 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure fancruft fantasy - all of the "references" are to Housefull 5 - because Housefull 6 doesn't exist. - Arjayay (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per nomination. Nothing here.Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Disaster Response Agency

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

Subject is a fictional government agency in a video game franchise and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Article reads a bit like fancruft, written almost entirely in-universe—very little real-world perspective, more suitable for a fan wiki—and the sourcing is fairly weak, largely Valnet and other unreliable sources (Looper, SVG) that describe the agency rather than say anything of interest about it. Subject is already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Video games, Military, and Organizations. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nominator that this should not be a separate article. It is sufficiently covered in the pages for The Last of Us. Available sources are mostly unreliable/low reliability and nothing establishes GNG of the subject outside the context of the game franchise. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fictional organization. Galaxybeing (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Easily passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage in 2025: [44] [45] [46]. Significant coverage in 2023: [47] [48] [49]. Significant coverage in 2020: [50] [51]. Multiple significant mentions in books which were published in 2022 and 2024: [52] [53]. There are tons of other sources. Just because this article reads bad is not a valid reason for deletion as it can be easily fixed by copyediting instead of deleting it. The argument that its "already sufficiently detailed at the relevant game/TV articles" is also invalid, as it can be used to delete any article on Wikipedia. For example, we can also delete Parkland high school shooting because its already sufficiently detailed by news reports. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity of sources does not confer notability. Most sources linked here are from Valnet which is a known content farm and not helpful for establishing notability. The mentions of FEDRA in a few academic books also don't seem significant enough to warrant a separate article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources from Valnet are unreliable. For example, The Gamer and Screen Rant are considered "marginally reliable". Also, there is like dozen other sources present in this article which are not owned by Valnet, but you guys ignore them for some reason. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Bevan

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

A journeyman actor; fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I can tell, all of his roles were bit parts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did not have any major roles in any films, only minor ones per above. Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 06:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most roles are uncredited or minor roles, I don't see sourcing we can use. I don't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete FamilySearch and IMDB are not enough to support inclusion of a page. It needs more secondary RSes. Fails to meet basic requirements for a page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am coming late to this discussion, but note that, while the article states that he was an actor on stage and screen, there is no list of stage performances. I am finding results in the British Newspaper Archive, and would like to compile his stage performances and consider whether he meets WP:NACTOR. Of interest so far - he played one of 4 main roles in 1912 in a farce about the "suffrage question" starring and co-written by Lillie Langtry, and appeared in the first performance of a play by Hall Caine at the Theatre Royal, Manchester, in 1911. He did have more than bit parts on stage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to afford some more time for consideration of Rebecca's comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the sources right now are horrible but if Rebecca turns up good ones I will most likley change my vote Scooby453w (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League World Cup all-time table

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

Unsourced and unnecessary articles. Rugby League World Cup records already has an overall records section, so this one in a different format is not needed. Also WP:NOSTATS violation as article is purely stats. Mn1548 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date information and unsourced - Possible redirect to RLWC records, but given the state of that article (almost entirely unsourced and trivial stats) I expect that it could probably be AfD nominated too. EdwardUK (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Legion (Ukraine)

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

There is no doubt that there are voltunteers from Armenia, but none of the references support the any official status with the Armed Forces of Ukraine. There is no evidence for the modern use of the official ensign; the name looks back to the Armenian Legion in WWII, but there is no evidence for it in Ukraine. Some of the references are untraceable. The page is at high risk of misleading readers. Klbrain (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect There does seem to be evidence for the Armenian Legion's existence, but most of it is from unreliable sources. Does not have the more considerable coverage of other foreign legions like the Georgian Legion. Would redirect to International Legion (Ukraine). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Avenue (band)

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

Seems to be just a cover band. Sources listed in article are all local, routine coverage. After a google search, not seeing enough sources to justify WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selale University

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

Undisclosed paid editing/conflict of interest fails WP:NORG. Theroadislong (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public university, not a paid promotion. Which parts raised concerns about undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest? But I can go ahead and blank it out, if it makes you happy. Wieditor25 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a public university, and paid promotion, are not mutually exclusive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A government source, the university's own website (which throws up a secure connexion failed error) and some routine coverage. Nothing here is any good. Wieditor25 has attemped to canvass this discussion on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep public Universities are generally presumed notable, even though here there isnt a ton of secondary coverage we can at least establish that this University exists and trains students. The article is in reasonable shape and has sources, we can improve COI issues but I simply dont see a reason to delete this. --hroest 14:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No they aren't. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambella University

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

Undisclosed conflict of interest...fails WP:NORG primary sourced advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a public university, not a paid promotion. Which parts raised concerns about undisclosed paid editing or conflict of interest? But I can go ahead and blank it out, if it makes you happy. Wieditor25 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being a public university, and paid promotion, are not mutually exclusive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wieditor25 no need to blank it nor should you. This discussion will determine if the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Other editors will hopefully opine. S0091 (talk) 18:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - I'm shocked to see the comments about COI, but there is no proof that the editor works at the university. Then again, most of the sources are from the university's website, so it could fall under a WP:SOAPBOX violation. JTZegers (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, most of the sources are from the university itself (connexion to subject). The rest are two counts of routine coverage, a dead source, and a PDF labeled as a "self-evaluation". Nothing here works. Also, Wieditor25 has attempted to canvass this conversation on the Teahouse. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep this needs some cleanup but this is a public university with some independent coverage from the Ethiopian News Agency. --hroest 19:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Said coverage is routine and is of little value in determining notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a major state-level university. See national TV news pieces here, here (new library inauguration), here, here (on COVID issue at uni). I note the reposted TV news coverage on 2024 strike at the Uni here. Again, AfD is not a space for cleanup of articles. --Soman (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think that public universities are automatically notable, but they usually are, owing to the size of the instiution, and their output. This is a case in point. There are mentions in many books. Mostly because books are written by or about people who studied there. Likewise there are a lot of news reports. Separating primary news reporting from secondary information is tricky, but not all the news is primary. Then there are research reports, actually studying aspects of the university, such as [54] which has a section starting on page 212 that contains secondary coverage of the university. There's a lot here, especially considering it is an African university, where English language sources can be harder to come by. I think we should keep this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Hard to find sources about the university, these come up [55], [56], talk about the student body and the programs there. Should be enough to keep the article. This is a case study [57]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Safety Network

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NORG, I did not find sources offering significant independent coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as the network is notable in the UK. There are secondary sources about it ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) and even academic research recognizing it ([7], [8], [9], and more). But I recognize Eddie891's point so I suggest some of these references being incorporated into the article so it is better sourced and more complete. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources have significant coverage and are reliable, and independent from the organization? I see reliable sources with trivial coverage, and non-independent sources with substantial coverage, but none that are all three. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1, 3 and 4 are not even independent. MarioGom (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources above, and aside from the fact I just had to remove a speedy deletion tag from this same page just a few days ago because no-one bothered to check that the content was different and was based on new sources unavailable when the first version was deleted, many of the new academic sources mentioned above are even newer that have been published since this version was created. Somehow I don't think its good idea to delete an article as "non-notable" when it seems to be continually generating new usable sources. Iostn (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Iostn: Which of those sources is an independent and reliable source that provides WP:ORGDEPTH, if any? MarioGom (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources mentioned before he academic citations were once I had no included for not being very useful, but aside from that, 7 is predicated on works by the TSN to a not-insignificant extent, including citing them through proxy via Andrews 2023, and 9 contrary to the "trivial mention" claim makes use of five separate citations leading to them across the document. In addition, 2 may also pass WP:SPS as the blog it belongs to is from an academic in this field, and that is not mentioning the additional coverage linked by @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist Iostn (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources being predicated on an organization's work, or citing or quoting that organization, do not contribute to notability. None of the provided sources have in-depth coverage of the organization itself.

Per WP:ORGDEPTH: significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

Per WP:ORGTRIV: trivial coverage includes brief or passing mentions, such as... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Astaire (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources presented by Afonso Dimas Martins do not meet the WP:NORG criteria for multiple independent sources with significant coverage.

Source 1: A technology company that redesigned the organization's website. Not independent.
Source 2: WP:SPS that is also not independent: I am also hugely grateful to grassroots organisations such as Trans Safety Network... for gathering a lot of the information I collated in this post.
Source 3: A pair of artists who have given a grant to the organization. Not independent.
Source 4: An activist collective announcing that the organization has joined it. Not independent.
Source 5: Trivial mention of a single sentence.
Source 6: Trivial coverage of 4 sentences total, and likely not independent because the source is encouraging readers to donate.
Source 7: Trivial coverage. The organization is cited in three separate sentences throughout the document.
Source 8: Trivial coverage. The organization is cited in two separate sentences throughout the document.
Source 9: Trivial mention of a single sentence.

Of the sources currently in the article, only this Pink News article constitutes significant, independent coverage. The other sources are interviews (i.e., not independent) or trivial mentions. WP:ORGCRIT is not satisfied. Astaire (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is acknowledging TSN as a source for research in 2 (i.e., essentially providing a citation in 2) "not independent"? Iostn (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon rereading, it's not clear whether the author was specifically provided the data by TSN, so I withdraw the "not independent" claim. The real issue is that source 2 fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Three sentences with passing mentions of TSN scattered across two different blog posts. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are very weak sources that really wouldn't help expand the article - eg. source 8 is a blogpost from a defunct activist group that has been subsequently uploaded to someone else's personal website. Void if removed (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In addition to the sources previously noted, particularly the academic sources discussing, contextualizing, and citing their research, there's sustained coverage in news publications for the last few years, ranging from in depth analyses of their reports to quoting them as subject experts on misinformation:
- TBIJ: Trans Safety Network, which records attempts at institutional and organised harm against trans people in the UK, has expressed concern that Bayswater actively promotes a manual for conversion therapy, coercive practices that aim to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.[58][59]
- Members speaking to parliament and giving quotes to Open Democracy[60]
- The Advocate (magazine) discussing viral research of the TSN: Now, new evidence has come out that suggests Twitter is restricting the visibility of LGBTQ+ content sent via direct message. The restrictions were first noticed by Twitter users before being publicized in a viral tweet from UK-based research collective Trans Safety Network.[61] This was also covered in the Independent.[62]
- Pinknews article devoted to just one of their open letters: Advocacy group Trans Safety Network published a letter on Wednesday (14 June) opposing a case brought by an anonymous father attempting to blockade his 21-year-old trans daughter from undergoing the procedure consensually.[63]
- The BBC asking TSN for comment on misinformation about trans people.[64]
- The byline times reporting on TSN's comments to open democracy and seeking comment from them themselves.[65]
- Coverage of TSN publishing leaked NHS training material in Xtra Magazine: Researchers at the Trans Safety Network, a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community, managed to obtain gender exploratory therapy materials from a NHS training in the U.K. held by a consultancy called Explore Consultation.[66]
- Vice covering how the TSN tracked another piece of misinformation: a baseless claim that Stonewall, the UK LGBTQ+ charity, are campaigning to lower the age of consent to ten years old. This is full-blown conspiracy theory has been tracked by the Trans Safety Network – a UK-based group that monitors anti-trans hate – to a statement by the Women’s Human Rights Campaign (WHRC).[67]
- NBC News quoting them on misinformation.[68]
This was a small sampling of news sources, and a quick check found about another dozen academic articles which cited and or discussed the TSN's research. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are frequently quoted in the media, but I still don't see any sources that clearly pass the WP:SIRS bar which we require for any organization. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all examples of trivial coverage: brief or passing mentions, such as... quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources and other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. (WP:ORGTRIV)

These sources would be useful to flesh out the article if notability were already established, but cannot themselves establish notability. Astaire (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not just quotes or brief/passing mentions, but coverage of actions:

The Advocate and Independent both covered their investigation into Twitter.[69][70]
The Pinknews piece is about an open letter organized by the TSN, discusses and analyzes their arguments over an article[71]
Xtra Magazine covers information that TSN leaked, analyzing and discussing it over an article[72]
Vice isn't a quote, it's a description of their research in an investigation[73]

The multiple articles solely devoted to investigations and lawsuits by this organization meet the S in SIRS easily. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth (WP:SIRS). The only coverage of TSN itself in those articles are single-sentence descriptions such as a "UK-based research collective" or an "advocacy group" or a "research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community". This is plainly not enough for notability. Astaire (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The only coverage of TSN itself in those articles are single-sentence descriptions - No, PinkNews devotes an entire article to an open letter from TSN, Xtra devotes a few paragraphs to their investigation, etc. An article saying "group, described as XYZ, did something. Here's more info about what they did. Here's how others responded. Here's how that's relevant to the broader story" is qualitatively different than "group, described as XYZ, said something". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PinkNews devotes an entire article to an open letter from TSN The letter is not the organization. There is no significant coverage of the organization in that article. It is described as an "advocacy group" with no further discussion.

Xtra devotes a few paragraphs to their investigation There is a single sentence describing TSN as "a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community" and mentioning that TSN was responsible for obtaining these materials. Xtra then discusses the materials without further reference to TSN. This is not significant coverage of the organization itself.

This article is an example of what significant coverage actually looks like. Astaire (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I've previously seen WP:SIGCOV taken to mean an article must cover an organization in depth and doesn't count if it covers an action of theirs in depth. Organizations are notable for their actions, services, etc. Under this criteria, if we had 100 RS covering actions of an organization in depth over years, but none devoted solely to "here's a profile of the org", we wouldn't be able to write an article. We'll have to agree to disagree on how SIGCOV applies and see what others think. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH is a fairly clear criteria, it requires in-depth coverage about the organization. And it is not clear how any source here meets it. MarioGom (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGDEPTH: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements

Articles devoted to actions of TSN are neither "brief mentions" or "routine announcements". The sources above go into "commentary", "discussion", "analysis" and "evaluation" Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may be my last comment here, because it is feels a bit like we are talking in circles and not likely to agree here, but this is my analysis of the sources presented.

The Advocate/Independent don't offer substantial analysis of the tweet they are reporting on. The advocate is entirely dependent on the organization, and TSN only comes up in The Independent briefly The restrictions were ...publicized in a viral tweet from UK-based research collective Trans Safety Network. They could support claims of twitter censorship, but tell us very little about the Trans Safety Network (~1 sentence)
Coverage of the open letter is somewhat more substantive, but again the only thing it can tell us about the Trans Safety Network is that they are an Advocacy group that published a letter on Wednesday (14 June) opposing a case brought by an anonymous father attempting to blockade his 21-year-old trans daughter from undergoing the procedure consensually. It's a much better source for the court case itself, and again has no independent analysis of TSN's role. Additionally, it is from the same source as our only agreed upon source of sigcov, so wouldn't count as a second piece
Xtra tells us that the TSN is a research collective that focuses on threats targeting the trans community which managed to obtain gender exploratory therapy materials from a NHS training in the U.K. held by a consultancy called Explore Consultation. The rest of the article tells us what those materials say, but do not talk any more about the TSN. It is a good source for the content of those materials, but only mentions the organization in passing.
All Vice tells us about the organization is that they tracked the spread of a baseless claim that Stonewall, the UK LGBTQ+ charity, are campaigning to lower the age of consent to ten years old. We honestly can't even tell whether the rest of the article describes TSN's research, or Vice's own.

As best I can tell, none of these sources offer more than a sentence of direct coverage of the Trans Safety Network, so I can't understand how they could be used to build an article. They are exactly the sort of sources that we would reject from contributing to the notability of a company- containing little to no independent analysis of the organization's work. For example, you cannot tell from these articles anything about the TSN: how they conduct their research, what exactly they are (beyond a 'research collective' or 'advocacy group'), where their information is coming from, when/why the group was founded, or what impact the group has had. Compare those articles to the SIGCOV [74]. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources discussed so far do not meet WP:ORGDEPTH, being cited by media is not enough to establish notability for organizations. MarioGom (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: broadly agree with other editors' assessment about lack of WP:ORGDEPTH in existing sources. Plenty of passing mentions and citations in academic work etc have been mentioned that could theoretically be used to build the article, but the most significant in-depth coverage in an RS that would establish notability is this Pink News profile. Does this alone pass the notability bar? Seems to fail WP:MULTSOURCES from what I can see. Void if removed (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't usually wade into AfD discussions these days because I have been burned in the past, but based on the sources shared in the discussion, plus those in the article itself, it is specious to say this organization is "not notable." I don't understand why the person who raised this AfD did not bring these concerns onto the talk page first. That should be a standard thing people do on here, but sadly I see they do not. As is said many times, deleting an article is not a substitute for cleanup. It never is and it never will be. Historyday01 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per YFNS. Sourcing indicates notability. notified from Wikiproject LGBT Talk page Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soun Takeda

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

Note tag placed. I think its non-notable. References are extremly poor, some promo. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Man doing his job. scope_creep^Talk 09:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please do a WP:JAPANBEFORE before nominating. JP wiki has such this source: Oricon, JP name seach yield this NHK, Mainichi Shimbun and many more on JP GNews. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro even got a PBS source lol Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Miminity - Could you please list below which are the three best citations that are: verifiable secondary reliable sources that provide in-depth significant coverage, and are fully-independent from the subject himself? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: sorry for the late reply: It passes GNG, Despite the (1) PBS source being about a local event, it is still not a WP:MILL news, it is still has a significant coverage about who the author is. (2) This Sankei Sports review. (3) This Nihonbashi Keizai Article

Additionally:

(4) This Sports Hochi source. I exclude paywalled sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I also found (3.5) this Journal by OpenEdition Journals , though in french might have a significant coverage about him Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miminity, Thank you for getting back to me. We differ in our analyses of the sources. I’ve already expressed what I thought about the PBS source (so I won't repeat myself here); the Sankai Sports piece is in a sports publication rather than an art or art history publication – it’s PR for a show at a department store and seems to be a press release not in any way a serious art review of a show at a museum or notable gallery or national gallery. The is promo for a calligraphy performance event, not an art review of his work. The Sports Hochi has the same problem in that it is not a serious art reference in an art publication, it’s about his performance of calligraphy as a kind of sport performed in a store. It’s human interest story, content created for the sports public not serious art criticism or art history. He does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT nor WP:NARTIST at this time. Don’t get me wrong, he seems like a great guy and an interesting calligrapher. I just don’t think the sourcing is what is usually present for a notable artist. Maybe in a few more years but now it is WP:TOOSOON.

This citation is pretty good: Cipango is a peer reviewed publication. I’d count that towards GNG, but not the others. If you can find two more like this I might change my mind. Netherzone (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miminity, and the subject seems to be a prolific author. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. His work has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Winning a 2019 "Best Father Award" from Japan Men's Fashion Association (MFU) is not notable. The PBS reference noted above is a review of a local exhibition at the Porch Gallery Ojai. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added an image to the article. See RIKEN Advance Institute for Computational Science (AICS-RIKEN) photo gallery for more pictures. Thanks. Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject of the article fails WP:NARTIST due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Many of the sources in the article seem to be PR or promotional puff pieces. What are needed are serious critical analysis of his work within an art historical framework. It doesn't matter that he's written a lot of books, if his books have not received critical attention he does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. WomanArtistUpdates rationale is very clear, as is their point that PBS is local coverage for a hyper-local event. Netherzone (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific author. Popular calligraphy artist. In practical terms, his work can be seen on the K computer (article available in several languages); image found in Commons. Originally, the article "Soun Takeda" (jp: 武田双雲) was translated from Wikipedia in Japanese. Thanks Tortillovsky (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get a commissioned work doesn't make you notable. scope_creep^Talk 04:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tortillovsky, being a "popular" or a "prolific" is not the same as notability; nor is being "seen" on the decommissioned K supercomputer. Just because an article exists on another language Wikipedia does not mean that they are notable per English Wikipedia criteria. Netherzone (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll go through the references today. scope_creep^Talk 04:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry, but being prolific and/or popular are not amongst the criteria to establish notability. As such, the subject lacks the necessary referencing to pass WP:SIGCOV.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Sugden

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find anything about this woman other than the expected nude pictures and tabloid "journalism" detailing incredibly minor events. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously changed to a redirect for the exact same reason, and nothing has changed since to make her more notable. Nomination for deletion since I simply do not think she's even notable enough for the redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Hard to find non-tabloid coverage, this [75] and this [76] helps. The multitude of Daily Mail or Sun coverage shows public knowledge of who she is. should at least be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this one as well [77] Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some decent coverage per @Oaktree b, but it only seems to be about a picture of her at a holocaust memorial, and a random scandal. Searching myself I can find many stories, but only about relatively minor details of her life, because she's a celebrity. She does seem to meet the general notability guideline of having coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if most of it is relatively pointless coverage of random details of her life. And she doesn't fall under "notable for only one event" because while 2 of the stories above not in tabloids are about the holocaust memorial incident, other articles are not about that. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, she doesn't really need a WP article any more than she needs the random newspaper articles on tiny details of her life. But if Wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge, some of it is going to be kind of pointless knowledge, I guess. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was on a TV show in the UK, that likely ads to the notability. Details here [78], here [79], here [80]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Ireland here [81]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Holocaust memorial "thing" is mentioned here [82], [83], these certainly all about her, but the event gained enough traction to show scholarly notice. That's something. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning delete as the article appears to fail GNG since sources only cover that the subject exchanged questionable texts with a married man and took a selfie at a Holocaust memorial which doesn't seem like significant coverage. I found a few small articles in her hometown newspaper including [84] but I still think it fails WP:BASIC, unless notability is via WP:ENTERTAINER but I don't see a case for this in the sources. I'm wondering if these same sources had different content if I'd see things differently which is why I'm not officially !voting yet. Nnev66 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dug up a few more [85], [86], [87]. That should be more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions here, Oaktree b. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
This was technically relisted several hours ago, but I'm noting this now as a procedural matter. Some comments above this line may actually have been added before the relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no WP:SIGCOV of this individual's career, but rather, a whole lot of tabloid nonsense and a handful of passing mentions in more reliable sources. In addition to the lack of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, the criteria outlined in WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMODEL are also unmet. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I Believe the work done by oaktree makes this article barely pass gng Scooby453w (talk) 15:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of games that Buddha would not play

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable whatsoever, can easily be merged into Buddha if it were notable Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Buddhism. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provides no benefit as a list. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Buddha per nom (WP:NOTSTATS) JTZegers (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:NOTSTATS apply here? I don't see the relation. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't appear there are any new reasons to claim non-notability that weren't raised last time, and just repeating the nomination to seek a different result isn't good practice. The same list occurs in multiple distinct locations in the canon, indicating that it is a distinct thing in itself and not just a random point of doctrine on the same level as any other. It has also been discussed in multiple sources other than Buddhism-related sources, as having historical interest of a broader kind, in particular as the earliest reference to blindfold chess (or a predecessor thereof). Again, this is interest in the thing itself not only as part of one bigger thing, so there is reason for it to have an article of its own. And that interest is not served by just mentioning the fact that there is a list; the historical interest benefits from seeing the list itself. It is not "statistics"; I don't know how WP:NOTSTATS would be relevant. And because this list is closed - it is not expected to have items added or deleted in the future - it does not have some of the practical problems that lists in Wikipedia often have. Consider whether the Seven deadly sins ought to be merged into Jesus; it's not clear there is a qualitative difference. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is not like a comparison between the seven deadly sins and Jesus, this is like a comparison between "Foods that Jesus would not eat" and Jesus. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a better analogy exists isn't a deletion criterion. Neither is the number of edits I have made, nor someone's opinion of whether the Buddha had bigger things to worry about than what the Pali Canon says he taught. What can be said about actual deletion criteria? 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing useful for merging. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pointless and its accuracy is questionable at best. The buddha had bigger things to worry about than hopscotch and charades. 128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The subject is notable, the sourcing isn't stellar but seems sufficient to establish notability. The deletion rationale is really weak and nothing has changed since the last nomination. I do question whether this is most appropriately presented as a list, and I wonder if that is contributing to the repeated nomination. An article with the list as its subject seems more appropriate. (For example its Ten commandments, not List of commandments given to Moses.) AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2607. jp×g 🗯️ 04:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting page with enough sourcing to appear valid. Doesn’t directly pertain to either games or Buddha and would be a distraction on either site. 02:16, 10 May 2025 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Re: claims of inaccuracy, sources supporting such claims would be welcome. Sojup (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 European Taekwondo Championships

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted back in 2022. Same issues still apply, but an editor continues to recreate the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Martial arts, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possibly block the editor in question for adding un-sourced content. JTZegers (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I feel that there is a chance for more sources to exist, but through newspapers.com all I got was one mention that is at least somewhat decent coverage. Ping if sources are found but does not seem like enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no different from the other 26 European Taekwondo Championships. I think the information on the website www.taekwondodata.com is sufficient. If additional sources are needed, is it not possible to request additional sources, not to delete this page? Deleting this page or blocking me is a non-solution. To write something about this page, I think you should take a look at the world taekwondo championship pages or other continental taekwondo tournaments. Many of them have been created this way.Pehlivanmeydani

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Intelligence

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

Genuinely surprised by the lack of coverage that exists for this character. I was hoping to improve his article, as its current Reception is primarily plucking smaller quotes and trivial mentions from larger episode reviews, but a search through News, Books, and Scholar yielded very little. All I found was plot summary of the character's appearances and trivial, scattered mentions that don't amount to SIGCOV. The few hits I found that were even close to significant- and indeed the only coverage in the current article that is- are about the Yeti, creations of the Intelligence who somehow have more actual tangible discussion than the Intelligence. This character just lacks any form of significant coverage to justify a whole article, and per NOPAGE, I'd support a redirect or merge to the Yeti article, as they are the subject most closely associated with the Intelligence and thus the best place to put information regarding the Intelligence's character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some reception in the article; there is some more praising Ian McKellen's performance as Great Intelligence in news articles; and more commentary in such sources in relation to other individual appearances. There is something strewn throughout Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, mostly plot summary but also some commentary (positive comparison with Fenric (Doctor Who), and specifically talking about how Moffat's version has decidedly little linkage to the yeti!); half a page at The Science of Doctor Who which includes commentary on the possible inspiration; and two pages as "The Psychic Papers: The Great Intelligence" in Who Is The Doctor 2: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who, again mostly plot summary, but also with commentary. So I did not see a lot of commentary in any one place, but enough of commentary in total to support a full article in the vein of WP:WHYN. And yes, all of this could be partitioned among the individual relevant episodes, the Yeti article and List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence. I just see no benefit in such a splitting up with regard to WP:NOPAGE. To the contrary WP:NOTPAPER seems to apply to me here. If push comes to shove I would prefer a merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Great Intelligence to deletion in the vein of WP:AtD, but prefer to keep the article. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the reliability of the publisher of Steven Moffat’s Doctor Who 2012-2013, especially given it's advertised as being written "by fans" on a publisher whose website apparently hasn't been updated consistently since 2015 and has a non-functioning FAQ. Regardless, even if we take it as reliable, I'd argue it's largely moreso discussing the Yeti than the Intelligence. The cited statements describe the Yeti for being silly antagonists and theorize if it tied into why they didn't return with the Intelligence, while giving comparatively little depth to the Intelligence; just saying the Intelligence was similar to another antagonist without much further depth isn't what I'd call significant analysis.

Science is largely a summary of the Yeti more than it is the Intelligence, and its brief musings over origins seem more fit for developmental information, not Reception, which is needed here. The Psychic Papers has some pretty solid coverage on both halves, and it's a pretty good find, but the source largely discusses the Yeti and Intelligence in tandem, which doesn't debunk the NOPAGE criteria outlined in my nom.

What I'm largely failing to see, and why I made this nomination, is a lack of actual distinct SIGCOV of the Intelligence separate from the Yeti. If the Yeti and Intelligence are discussed entirely together, then NOPAGE very strongly applies given the shared overlap of both of their appearances, roles, and reception. In all the sources above, the Yeti take up a lot of coverage on the Intelligence, and arguably dwarf the Intelligence in comparative coverage despite being described in the same context. The shared coverage indicates to me that anyone looking for either of the pair would likely be looking for coverage on both of them, something better accomplished in one article where all the information can be contained together, than in two separate articles that are intrinsically tied to each other and require the other article to wholly understand. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one comment: I agree with musings over origins seem more fit for developmental information, not Reception, but not with which is needed here. For notability, we need a sufficient amount of coverage. Per WP:ALLPLOT, in addition to plot summary, coverage needs to include real-world context. As examples of such context are listed development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis. So reception is one valid topic here, developmental background another. Daranios (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation of Iraqis

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

The article makes significant claims, such as the forced displacement of over one million Iraqi Arabs by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) between 2003 and 2005, yet the cited sources do not directly support these assertions with verifiable evidence or numeric data.

For example:

The Forced Migration Review article addresses displacement but does not specifically accuse the KRG or offer detailed statistics.
The New Humanitarian report discusses internal displacement broadly and doesn't attribute mass expulsions to the KRG. (WP:SYNTH)
The Guardian article provides anecdotal reports of tensions in post-Saddam Iraq but does not claim widespread deportation by the KRG, nor cite figures.
The VOA News report focuses on Arab return movements and property disputes, but does not support the article's claims of organized deportations.
The CRS report broadly surveys displacement in Iraq without identifying the KRG as responsible for any mass forced removals.
The Brookings article examines Iraq's IDP crisis but contains no specific accusations or quantitative data about KRG-led deportations.

Especially who says 1,000,000 million? Additionally, the topic overlaps with more comprehensive and better-sourced articles such as Ba'athist Arabization campaigns in northern Iraq and Arabization of Kirkuk, making this entry largely redundant. What reasoning supports calling it "deportation" when Arab settlers, originally relocated to Kurdish areas by the Ba'ath regime, were simply returned to their places of origin? Finally, the topic fails to meet WP:N and WP:NPOV. Zemen (talk) 20:34, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article documents the displacement of Iraqi Arabs in the post-2003 period, which is supported by sources like Human Rights Watch, the Guardian, and VOA. HRW explicitly uses the term “reversing ethnic cleansing” and discusses Arab expulsions in detail and another 2003 article from The Guardian titled “Arabs flee revenge of the Kurds” describes how, in the aftermath of the U.S.-led invasion, Kurdish groups moved to reverse Saddam Hussein’s Arabization process. And the VOA says “Forced deportations of Arabs from Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq has the United Nations' top human rights official concerned”. this article reflects well-documented patterns during this time. The topic is distinct from Ba’athist Arabization—it focuses on the post-invasion period and its own displacement crisis. I’m open to refining the wording or structure, but the subject itself is notable and sourced, there is absolutely no reason for it to be deleted. DataNomad (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to repeat wording that already exists in the article. My concern isn't that some sources aren't reliable, I never claimed that. The issue is how they're being used. You didn't even explain where the "1,000,000" figure comes from! there's no citation or numeric data supporting that huge claim!. Also, the sources don't accuse the KRG alone, most of them talk about general displacement, with multiple actors involved. Only one of them even says "Kurdish-dominated northern Iraq" and none directly blame the KRG by name for organized, systematic deportations. So why are other participants and contexts missing from the article? That's a clear WP:NPOV. Zemen (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Sikorki (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I don't even need to check sources, I can judge based on the person who made this and their response which doesn't even address the biggest problem, the 1,000,000 claim. It's clear asserting this to only the KRG as this is a Kurd nationalist who wants to flex the deportations rather than help out Wikipedia. Setergh (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Setergh, please focus on the article and its sourcing, not on your personal opinion of the editor. You should check the sources before offering your opinion at an AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, however it was just a random thing I mentioned. Either way the rest which I have stated is something I find to be valid, as once again, the user has not addressed the main issue. Setergh (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to some extent, the user could simple change the “perpetrator” section of the infobox. Other than that, what else seems to be the issue? I’m aware that the KRG wasn’t directly responsible, but does that justify the entire deletion of the page? Etcnoel1 (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N and WP:MOS. This user has a history of creating unencyclopedic content. Just because something appears on Google doesn't mean it deserves a place in any encyclopedia. just look at this (and its nomination for deletion). Some of the numbers in the sources pertain to neighboring countries of Iraq and even Fallujah! Since when have the Kurds established their own country and become Iraq's neighbors? This clearly shows the article was written in a biased manner. Zemen (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are literally targetting me this is the 4th page of mines you are on DataNomad (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Laura240406 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like to be eligible for keeping; but this is fine if it attaches further references . 110 and 135 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering All substantive concerns regarding the article have already been thoroughly addressed in the previous discussion. What reasons are there to support keeping the article? Zemen (talk) 09:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works, @Zemen. What you need is a consensus. Perhaps another admin might count this as "consensus", in which case they could close this at any time, but I'm not going to delete an article that has a complicated reason for deletion, opposition to that deletion, and not a single substantial response in favour of deletion. -- asilvering (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a mish-mash of claims and misreading the sources. I'm sure move people were displaced, but nothing showing this was an organized effort. I can only see coverage from 20 yrs ago and nothing since, I'm not sure this has much notability. The displacements could be mentioned in an article about the war, but we don't have confirmation that this was an organized effort. No scholarly articles have dealt with this either, in the 20 yrs since. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuccio Rinaldis

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

Current sourcing is comprised of two brief mentions of this working audio engineer. Definitely accomplished, but searches did not turn up enough in-depth references from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to deletion: Studio audio engineers like Nuccio Rinaldis, fulcrums of the discography in Italy with their constant work in pursuit of "vocal and instrumental sound perfection" (from the first to the last note down to mixing) in front of recording desks alongside proven successful artists with millions of records sold and million-dollar turns of business, have no media sponsors to pull from to retrieve sources. But this is not a culturally significant reason to propose deletion of the entry. The works done, widely historicized, are the equivalent of reliable sources. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's date added bibliography. --CoolJazz5 (talk) 10:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Mina, not notable outside of his work with the singer. Also, the previous comment claiming "producing successful records is equivalent to reliable sources" is hilarious lol

ApexParagon (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, not any material worth merging to Mina (Italian singer). Tenshi! (Talk page) 12:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Click Play

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

As I said in my redirect edit, "One Instagram post from the artist with zero reliable coverage for the album itself (I'm not convinced coverage for the singles is enough here since the album is a footnote in those articles)." Even a few hours into the next day, there still has been no new coverage of this announcement. Even Billboard, which had an article about Max just a month ago which is included here, have not published anything about this album announcement. I do not see notability here at this time, still believe the article is premature, and that a redirect to the artist's page is still the best option until more coverage comes along. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted, it's not consistent with practice for other articles. I guarantee you if Taylor Swift announced a new studio album and all we had was posts from her on social media and no news coverage, that there wouldn't be a deletion discussion. While she certainly is no Taylor Swift, Ava has BILLIONS of streams, hundreds of millions of YouTube views, won MTV & iHeart awards, topped charts in 20 countries, certified albums platinum, etc which qualify her as a major pop artist in several countries. An artist's official announcement (with reposts by the official record label) is enough info. There really are no MAJOR pop music magazines, websites, that the general public is aware of. Not everything is a news article, like many, many other articles on Wikipedia, this refers to a specific niche which has attracted notability within a certain group, in this case the European music industry. And you have to be aware that the announcement was made yesterday afternoon. 216.106.93.194 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make this album notable. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards for notability are not based on assuming whether the general public knows about something. There is a long history as to why we look to what are considered reliable sources such as professional music publications. If they aren't covering an album announcement, then we shouldn't have an article for it just on the assumption that it just has to be huge deal, even if it's from Taylor Swift (though I see headlines about every other time she breathes so I doubt that'd ever happen). And Ava Max being notable herself, a fact that I have and would not deny, does not mean that every album she releases is automatically as well; notability is not inherited after all. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Taylor Swift only announced a new album on social media only, it would be at most a one line mention in her article, not a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore not notable. Likely a case of too soon if anything. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NegativeMP1 [88] I just checked new Billboard article was uploaded, what's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has some released music and has multiple reliable sources discussing the teasers for the upcoming album. TOOSOON is an essay that calls attention to there being a problem with there not being enough reliable sources to talk about a thing yet, but two reliable sources talking about the album are in the article, which is well-cited. It seems fine to me. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As the nomination states, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources for this album. It's just an instagram post, and the billboard article that does not mention the album is literally about the artist trolling which makes the instagram post seem even less reliable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the cited articles? No mention of upcoming album in the billboard article. RollingStone and Uproxx just mention teases of a new album and there is no significant coverage in either. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz [89] I just checked new Billboard article was uploaded, what's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still concur with QuietHere below. The single billboard reference still reads mainly like routine coverage of an album announcement.

That said, I think Draftify is probably more appropriate than deletion at this point. It's clear that there are interested editors who will update the article as the album release approaches/happens so I don't think it will languish there for eternity like some articles sent to draft space. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely support draftifying. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect back to Ava Max — it fails WP:FUTUREALBUM I think? Limmidy (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Limmidy [90] I just checked new Billboard article was uploaded, what's your think? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article, namely the album is already notable, and the other medias must be going to publish about this album soon. No reaso to be deleted like this, and also many users may not recognize this fact:

Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted;

Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[91] Now I got a source for it. So I sustain ~~Keep~~. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Camilasdandelions you're only allowed one vote per discussion; regardless if it's just you reiterating your point, you shouldn't post a bolded vote twice.

2. Unfortunately, while I'm glad to see one major publication finally covering this, typically it's preferred to see at least two or three for an upcoming album. After so many days, somehow, Billboard are still the only ones to have done so, so I am still unconvinced that this album is ready for an article at this time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Billboard's article about the album's announcement was published yesterday, just a day after this article was made a candidate for deletion. The album was only announced three days ago. I think it would be purposeless hassle to delete this article and then inevitably bring it back in under a week. Abby Abangan (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"inevitably" and "under a week" are both assumptions that Wikipedia does not have room for. We have no idea when or even if more coverage will appear, and we can't just leave articles live on the expectation that it could. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The album has a Billboard article for its announcement, and multiple major music publications referenced the album in articles related to pre-release singles. There is no objective standard by which this article should definitively be deleted, so it's really a matter of whether someone wants to go through unnecessary trouble or not. Abby Abangan (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is better to delete it unless by attaching more sources. 110 and 135 (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sympathetic to the points made above that Max is a very well-known artist and her third album is guaranteed to be notable, so per WP:NOTBURO deleting this temporarily is a waste. In addition to the Billboard piece, the album announcement has been covered on some other sites [92][93] and a promotional campaign for it has also been covered [94]. This isn't the strongest sourcing ever, but in my opinion, when combined with the context of the artist, it's enough to keep this article. Toadspike [Talk] 11:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more sources when searching "Ava Max third album": [95][96] Toadspike [Talk] 09:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Billboard post is a RS, the rest help prove this. I see no point in deleting the article then having to-recreate it in less than 6mths if the album does happen. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps draftify then? The page is new enough that this would be reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe it looks like CSD doesn't apply in this case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft was written off, and the crash was part of the record - for instance being mentioned again in articles on other crashes such as [97] [98] (those don't meet GNG for this crash, but the article meets GNG and the crash is well documented.) The previous AfD wasn't that well attended so speedy delete doesn't make sense here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aircraft accident was caused by blockage of pitot tubes which has resulted in fatal plane accidents like Birgenair Flight 301 and Aeroperu Flight 603. Also, comparing it to the other FedEx accidents like FedEx Express Flight 630, it had more damage and more long-lasting importance. The entire plane was submerged in the Subic Bay. If you're going to delete this article, then delete almost all the FedEx accidents Wikipedia articles. They all have the same amount of notability as this one. We got plenty of sources and a full report. Plus, the accident report clearly listed recommendations and changes after this accident. The plane was also declared a hull loss with the entire plane being completely submerged and destroyed except the cockpit. Zaptain United (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUTX is not an argument. We evaluate the notability of events on their individual merit, not based on other articles. Just because recommendations were issued doesn't mean that they were implemented. Can you prove that the accident actually led to changes in procedures and had lasting effects? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An event can also be notable without a lasting effect per wikipedia:EVENTCRITERIA point 2, if the event had widespread coverage, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok… and where is that re-analysis? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxtQv6zUuo. Also in the report it stated on page 158, that because of this accident, Boeing revised the MD-11 Flight Crew Operating Manual to provide additional guidance to flight crews. The guidance states that if any two of the following alerts are displayed simultaneously, the crew should use these alerts as valid indications to immediately refer to the “Airspeed Lost, Suspect, or Erratic” checklist: “SEL ELEV FEEL MAN”; “SEL FADEC ALTN’; “SEL FLAP LIM OVRD.” https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube is an unreliable source and the person who published the recreation of the event is not a subject-matter expert (see WP:SPS). Although there was a change in procedure (thank you for finding it), the coverage is still subpar and we're still lacking a secondary source which is required per WP:WHYN.^[1] Maybe as an alternative, the article could be merged into Pitot tube#Aircraft and accidents or FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce

I thought these were secondary sources? Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all first-hand news reports of the accident so they all qualify as primary sources. Secondary sources normally contain analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event based on primary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of information of this accident. Also, the DC-10 and MD-11 have had incidents involving anomalous airspeed indications. It was a problem affecting the aircraft like the bounce landing problem. It caused two different World Airways incidents and some minor incidents. It is clear that blockage of pitot tubes has affected those planes. What makes this accident different is that this was a hull loss and caused changes to prevent blockage of pitot tubes on Md-11 planes. I think it can stand on its own.https://web.archive.org/web/20220209071829/https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=38G%2BwiGL7qs%3D&tabid=3202 Zaptain United (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only real-time coverage, no retrospective analysis. Wikipedia is not a collection of news articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't these secondary sources, that are used in the article?

FedEx MD-11 in Subic Bay overrun | News | Flight Global

FEDEX CREW SURVIVES CRASH CARRIER LOSES COURT ROUND | Journal of Commerce Zaptain United (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

Keep WP:N, WP:V [99] [100] [101] [102] just a mention here. There are some more bits of analysis out there available. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source only mentions the accident as part of statistics and there’s no significant coverage; the second source contains no mention of the accident; the third is a database entry so it doesn’t establish notability; the fourth is better than the rest but still does not contain significant coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Aviationwikiflight:, please learn what a secondary source is. All references in the nominated article are secondary sources. Aviation accident investigation bodies are indepenent of airlines and aircraft manufacturers, and are no primary sources. This applies to other articles you have nominated for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Per WP:SECONDARY, A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. Sources 1,3,5, and 6 are all either primary or first-hand breaking news coverage of the event; sources 2 and 4 are tertiary as they're databases. None of these sources include any sort of "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" based on primary sources. There are clearly zero sources in the article that are secondary (nor in the others that I nominated). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make them "primary sources". This is a bizzare reinterpretation of what "primary source" is, and it's a troubling one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a bizarre nor troubling interpretation. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS:
[...] Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
Several academic research guides name newspaper articles written at the same time as the event as one kind of primary source.^[a] Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material.^[1] Other university libraries address newspaper sources in more detail, for instance:
"[...] A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events".^[2]

"[...] A recently published journal or newspaper article on the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court case would be read as a secondary source, because the author is interpreting an historical event. An article on the case that was published in 1955 could be read as a primary source that reveals how writers were interpreting the decision immediately after it was handed down".^[3]

"Characteristically, primary sources are contemporary to the events and people described[.] [...] In writing a narrative of the political turmoil surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election, a researcher will likely tap newspaper reports of that time for factual information on the events. The researcher will use these reports as primary sources because they offer direct or firsthand evidence of the events, as they first took place".^[4]

"[...] Traditionally, however, newspapers are considered primary sources. The key, in most cases, is determining the origin of the document and its proximity to the actual event".^[5]
Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not a bizarre reinterpretation that an air accident investigation is a primary source. These are classic primary sources for the question as to what happened in an aviation accident. That they analyse the question of what happened, and pull together evidence, recordings and interviews is not enough to make them secondary. They are primary in the sense that any piece of research analysis is primary. They are a studied account of what happened. Research, government reports etc., are all primary sources for the same reason. See, for instance, [103], or any such guide. The official air accident investigation report is certainly a primary source.
But the question usually has some shades of grey. The question as to whether information is primary or secondary often depends on the question asked of the source. But what question are you asking here? If the question is "is this air accident notable" then it clearly makes no sense to argue that notability is demonstrated by the existence of the air accident investigation report. Every air accident has one of those. So either the argument is that they are all, by definition, notable, or else the existence of such a report can add nothing to an indication of notability. If they are all notable, there needs to be an SNG saying so. The existence of this primary source can add nothing to the question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you're confusing Wikipedia:Party and person. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gilman, Todd. "Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources". Yale University Library. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.
^ "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary". libguides.jcu.edu.au. Queensland, Australia: James Cook University. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
^ "Primary and Secondary Sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
^ González, Luis A. (2014). "Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources". Indiana University Libraries. Retrieved March 18, 2021.
^ Sanford, Emily (2010). "Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview". Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Archived from the original on 22 September 2011.

^
See for example:
- Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.
  
  Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.
  
  Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FedEx Express#Major incidents and accidents, suggested by the nom. in a reply above, so presumably the nom. is content too. This over the other suggestion as this article already contains mention of this accident and salient details. It is not a keep, because we have no secondary sources, and no sustained interest in this event. All we have is the accident investigation (all crashes have these) and a couple of contemporary news accounts that are primary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS and nothing that is WP:SUSTAINED. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 European Athletics Indoor Championships – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay

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. IAWW (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports), these individual event articles are not presumed notable. I can not find sufficient coverage of this subject in reliable secondary sources for it to meet GNG – the current article relies entirely on primary sources. Courtesy ping to Editør, who nominated this for GA. IAWW (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. IAWW (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Europe, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it is not hard to find sources with reports about this relay event, to give just a few: Athletics Weekly, BBC, La Gazzetta dello Sport, De Telegraaf, Algemeen Dagblad, NRC Handelsblad, Nederlandse Omroep Stichting – Editør (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I missed the Athletics Weekly post somehow. I couldn't find the others because I don't speak Dutch and the BBC mentions it only in passing. I'll withdraw this nomination when I next have access to my laptop. IAWW (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will try to incorporate some of these secondary sources in the article as well. – Editør (talk) 11:04, 11 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.

The Wall Song

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are promo, primary. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:RPRGM (itself an essay and not a formal SNG) has not mentioned TV programmes since 2021, but if I understand correctly, it used to say that programmes broadcast on national networks are likely to be notable. This one has been nationally broadcast for five years, so not sure how the nom's "fails WP:RPRGM" statement should be interpreted. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an inherent difficulty in evaluating coverage of popular media in Thai entertainment reporting in terms of independence, as such coverage has traditionally made little distinction between original reporting and supplied material. Thairath, for example, has lots of episode recaps in its website tag for the programme[104], and though most of them read promotionally, there's also a critical news item[105] and even some discussion by the print edition's political columnist[106]. There was a flurry of news coverage when the programme's host was implicated in The iCon Group case leading to his termination[107][108][109], but even some of these appeared to be PR-based[110][111][112][113]. The most in-depth piece of coverage is this piece by web magazine The Cloud[114]. It's interview-based, but includes an introductory section of twelve sentence-length paragraphs in the writer's own voice that indicate source independence. Maybe consider rescoping to cover the franchise instead, since there's more English-language coverage about it[115][116], but then again most of it is from trade publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to !vote weak keep. The The Cloud piece is substantial enough to base an article on, and the other news mentions taken together help back that up. The Nataraja win is also an indicator of its significance. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recipient of national major awards: Nataraja Awards (รางวัลนาฏราช, a top-tier award in Thailand) [117], TV Gold Awards (รางวัลโทรทัศน์ทองคำ, should be the most prestigious TV awards in Thailand) [118]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources and awards provided here would be helpful in forming a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Elli (talk | contribs) 04:19, 3 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) 05:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Sikora

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

Contested prod without improvement. Currently sourcing does not show they pass WP:GNG, and searches did not turn up with enough in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources to show they meet GNG. And they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep - has a German-speaker done WP:BEFORE? Most/all sources will be in German. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the history of this article, it appears to be a translation of the poorly sourced German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernd_Sikora. No sources there to help sustain the biographical information and claims made in the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have revisited this article several times. I've made some edits, but am unable to find RS to show notability. Sikora designed an observation tower and a footbridge. The sourcing for this information is miriquidimedia.de (Miriquidi Media), which looks to be a site about Sikora that promotes his books, project and tours. I don't think it can be considered an independent source. The citation for the biographical information is a dead link. The listing for books have citations that don't link anywhere, just hyperlink for ISBN and hyperlink to the Wikipedia pages of the German region the book covers. I have not found anything on the internet to show notability. The fact that there might be something somewhere in German needs to survive WP:BURDEN --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 1 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 20:55, 3 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) 05:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farida Mansy

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

Unfortunately, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNASTICS. The two Instagram sources cannot be used to establish notability (and one of the sources doesn't even mention her name at all). The PDF is just a table of scores from a competition. Although she has won an award, it was with a team, and WP:NGYMNASTICS requires individual awards. I searched for sources and even did a regional search for Egypt, but found nothing. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I searched and couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. No individual awards to meet WP:NGYMNASTICS either. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON, may become notable in the medium term. Svartner (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner: What do you mean by "the medium term"? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
During this year for example, as competitions take place. It seems to me an emerging talent. Svartner (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner: She did competitions this month and won as a team—which does not satisfy WP:NGYMNASTICS, as per above. We could keep waiting forever for notability to emerge, but it might not. Better to delete the article, and if notability comes up later, restore it. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 21:59, 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) 05:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeneas MacBean

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

Although this person had an interesting name, there is nothing in the article that demonstrates this person was notable. Why is the music video for You're My Best Friend cited? Aneirinn (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day (Forrest Frank song)

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

Redirect to Child of God (album). Despite charting, the song is not covered in reliable sources, thus failing WP:NSONG. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 04:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a passing mention in a Billboard article [119] but that's about it for WP:RS. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I increased the amount of secondary sources in the article, if that's what you're requesting.
  01:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC) Javajourney (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Varamar

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

This article possibly WP:COI Might have been created by someone affiliated with the group which violates WP:NPOV policy. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Management, Products, Transportation, China, Middle East, Germany, Ukraine, and Canada. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not seem like this company meets WP:NCORP. Aneirinn (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty Bhati

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

This article seems like a promotional bio rather than an Wikipedia page, which violates WP:NPOV policy. It may have been created by someone connected to the subject possibly WP:COI. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Wrestling, India, and Uttar Pradesh. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are you unhappy just because your article Akash Singh Rajput has been deleted?? Zuck28 (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Zuck28, Why should I be ? 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not target and nominate any article like this. If you believe the article needs to be improved, you can edit and make updates, but not afds are not for this.

Zuck28 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I want to clarify that I’m not targeting anyone or any specific article. I’m simply following the usual process as part of my routine contributions. If there are issues with the article, I’m happy to improve it through edits my intention was never to disrupt anything out. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Bąk

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

Contested prod. Single source. Cannot find any other in-depth sources about this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This might about the person [120], I can only see an extract so I can't translate it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some articles coming up in Google Scholar which mention this Zbigniew Bąk (I think, although his father had the same name ....), so it would probably be possible to add more sources. For someone living in the 15th century, we do seem to know quite a lot about him. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Polish Wikipedia uses this ref:

Alicja Szymczakowa, Zadorowie z Bąkowej Góry w: Herald – pismo Instytutu Heraldyki i Genealogii w Köln, 1993, Nr 7, s. 34-39

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not find Zbigniew Bąk in the 31,247 entries in the Polish Biographical Dictionary (not to be confused with The Polish Biographical Dictionary which is offline and has only 900 entries). I'm leaning towards "delete" right now. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Swaying towards a relist rather than a no-prejudice delete, but one relist might clear the air.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pinging Oaktree b, RebeccaGreen, and A. B., to see if they have reached a decision regarding this one.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per concerns above. The lack of an entry in the Polish Biographical Dictionary is telling. Based on passing mentions, this person was important in his day and we should have an article but not until we have reliable refs. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just no sourcing, the lack of an entry in the Biographical Dictionary as above seals it, not meeting our notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Pachauri

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

Most sources are minor mentions or routine coverage, insufficient for a standalone entry under WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:14, 11 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, and India. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul (company)

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage in reliable sources & most important article is promotional in tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, China, United Arab Emirates, India, Gujarat, Brazil, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -Atul is a noted company of India founded in 1947 , listed both on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange [121] with Stock Price of Rs 6773/-, Please do WP:BEFORE before nominating and read WP:DEL before nominating articles for deletion Jethwarp (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khwarizmi International College

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

I prodded this last 2022 with this rationale:

Fails WP:GNG. No substantial hits from Google Books, News, Scholar and News Archives.

Google search also turned out typical business and map listings.

Do note that there's an existing institution in UAE that has a similar name so expect false positives.

I've also checked the reference in the article which only gives a passing mention of the institution.

--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found a nice source here and a passing mention here though there isn't anything else. These sources still can't make a decent article, and the article is pretty short. This may have a chance of redevelopment if there are more sources about this school. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 09:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Maqsoud Liberation Forces

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

article rely on speculative and unverifiable claims about the group activities, structure & history, which violates WP:NOR. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Syria, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the history of the group must be understood, that is why there are sources and they are not speculative, they are real Farcazo (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Sources are taken from Battle of Aleppo (2024) and Operation Dawn of Freedom Farcazo (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the existence of the article's content on Sheikh Maqsoud. Azuredivay (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition is like saying that Manbij Military Council should not exist because of the city of Manbij you have to learn to differentiate between city or locality and armed forces Farcazo (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmonton Rugby Union

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

Amateur sporting organization which does not assert WP:GNG. I found sources online that it exists, but nothing that was third party, independent, nor reliable. Flibirigit (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby union, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Abravanel

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

Subject only played three games at the third tier of American soccer. WP:GNG Raskuly (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Raskuly (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: Kitsap Sun (p2), more in the Sun (p2), Ventura County Star (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He did play at the professional level, but not for long, I also see he did get notable secondary coverage, such as the Ventura County Star. I see no problem with keeping the article, but it does need to be expanded as it is a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was gonna include some articles I found, but noticed that Beanie already did the honors. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there are only a few sources, they are notable and this person did have a formal, long, and notable soccer career. More sources would bolster inclusion but I think overall, this is notable enough to keep. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be on wikipedia notable sources found.Sync! (talk)
Delete Articles from two local newspapers do not come close to demonstrating notability. The two Kitsap Sun articles are about this local Kitsap player getting try outs. That is news reporting of the tryout, which is primary news reporting. Note that we don't even know from this if he succeeded. Presumably not, because if he had, where is the coverage on that? Any use of those in the article would require SYNTHesis from primary sources. Primary sources do not count towards notability. What about the Ventura County Star? Well this is not about his football career at all. Indeed, it seems the career has been abandoned because he has gone into business and he is donating soccer balls to youth teams. That report is clearly not independent. Abravanel's company is drumming up interest by donating soccer balls to local kids, and the local paper runs the story. Good marketing, but it is not notable. There is nothing here from which an article can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This source from 2011 mentions the tryout. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. But still a local news report and primary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because some (non-trivial, but rather primary) sourcing exists does not mean we have to have an article, and the fact that coverage of this subject has essentially nothing to do with why he's supposed to be notable (actually playing professional football) is evidence this coverage is non-encyclopedic. NOPAGE applies here. JoelleJay (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This guy, strictly speaking, meets the GNG. The sources aren't perfect, but I'm not a huge fan of writing off so much otherwise decent coverage as "local". Toadspike [Talk] 10:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... and primary and/or not independent. That is, the coverage does not meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, we know we have different interpretations of what a secondary source is and how important this is at AfD. In my view, the two Kitsap Sun articles are independent and contain enough background information that I am unwilling to discount them as primary sources. There is also this [122] cited in the article. The Ventura County Star article is an obvious advertisement, so shouldn't be considered. Thus, I land at a weak keep. I disagree with @JoelleJay below that the coverage is not encyclopedic and @Aneirinn that there is no significant coverage. The two Kitsap Sun articles are plainly sigcov and we have enough information to write a stub that tells us which teams he's played for and when, plus some extra details if we like (e.g. that he stood out in an exhibition match). Toadspike [Talk] 06:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG note 4 says, inter alia, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. [...] a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. so all the Kitsap sources count as one. So we remain short of GNG, which requires multiple sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike, the thing is, we don't have to have a standalone article on someone just because there's coverage. NOPAGE is perfectly valid, especially in this case where what coverage there is is not particularly encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not significant coverage. This article fails WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Lowell (soccer)

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Hampshire, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Allen

AfDs for this article:

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

Not convinced this person is notable. Yes she wrote a "New York Times bestseller", but even for that the primary reason it was a bestseller was because she coauthored it with Hilary Duff, and it seems likely many people bought it because they were fans of Duff – essentially ghostwriting in the open. She created some children's TV shows – even if those shows are notable, I don't think that necessarily makes her notable by extension. Note this article was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elise_Allen in Feb 2020 but then recreated roughly 10 months later – and I'm not sure if anything had really changed between its deletion and its recreation. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the Emmy nomination could be notable, but all we have for sourcing is a list with a name. I can't find sourcing about this person, so not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Comics and animation, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aldair Sanchez

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT because of a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, Oregon, and Rhode Island. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Taylor Chapman

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. A city councilman (unless of a city significantly larger than Alexandria, Virginia) isn't notable. Could be redirected to Alexandria, Virginia#Government, I suppose. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kane County John Doe (1994)

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. This possible murder victim was finally identified 30 years after his body was found, but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fanger

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. He played in obscure article-less bands and founded a "local removals company". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does appear to have been something of a "local legend", but, a tad reluctantly, I have to agree with the nomination. Having undertaken several searches, including via TWL, I'm unable to find evidence the subject meets any notability guidelines. ResonantDis_tortion 10:22, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above. If we were Bristolpedia, he'd be in, but he doesn't meet the threshold for Wikipedia. Leonstojka (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Merrithew

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. His film and TV credits are not particularly significant and his company is unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Theatre, Health and fitness, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychiatric Illness in General Practice

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

A page for a a research study from 1970, with notability supported by only one independent source. Pubmed shows 243 citations (over the course of 55 years), which suggests that it is influential, but insufficient for stand-alone notability. Klbrain (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Psychiatry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual papers are seldom notable, and if so, there should be extensive secondary coverage (not just citations by other studies). Plus, the article is almost devoid of content, just a summary of the abstract. Until secondary sources are found, this fails WP:GNG. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Bob

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

I think this should be redirected to Leo XIV as the primary topic. The current pope is regularly referred to as "Pope Bob" by media outlets, and thus readers searching that name are most likely to be looking for Leo XIV at present. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Christianity, Disambiguations, Italy, Peru, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems to be a fairly clean case of WP:PTOPIC. Most mentions of "Pope Bob" are referring to Leo XIV. Nahida 🌷 00:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was also a (slightly ironic) nickname for Robert G. Ingersoll. [123] I'm too tired to add add it to the article/dab, but with three potential subjects, we're looking more at moving than redirecting, right? GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 00:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added to article and page. Thanks for the cite. I agree. Move first to Pope Bob (disambiguation) and then redirect. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for adding it! And with that, I'm going to !vote Move, then re-create as redirect and link to the dab in a hatnote. Yes, the fact that there's an actual Pope called Pope Bob is a recent affair. However, for the foreseeable future, it's still much more likely that readers will be looking for the actual pope than Ingersoll and Wilson. As demonstrated in the articles, Wilson is only called Pope Bob by a relatively small group of people. Ingersoll was called Pope Bob in the 1800s; while some people might see a reference to the old nickname and search it here, we can hardly say he's the primary topic. Conversely, even my mother (not up on memes, like, in the slightest - she didn't learn who Lady Gaga was until a few years ago) has been calling the pope 'Pope Bob'. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 17:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disamb., "Pope Bob" has redirected to Robert Anton Wilson since November 2019. Not many views, but a long-time nickname for Wilson both among the subgenius and, mainly, the Discordians. If redirected to Leo XIV a hatnote to Wilson seems an option. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as disambiguation. This is just WP:RECENTISM; there are reliably attested sources indicating this nickname applies to other individuals. If in several months' time, "Pope Bob" is indelibly associated with Leo XIV, then we can reconsider, but not now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation (and not a redirect), per reasons listed by User:Randy Kryn above. It's a term that can refer to any of the three, and has been used to refer to any of the three, and keeping it as a disambiguation page feels like the safest bet for now. Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation, no primary topic – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recentism concern here is obviously valid. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't strive to support the latest and greatest slang usage because it's impossible to say whether it has long-term significance. I doubt any readers looking up this term will be really astonished to see that more than one topic may be referred to this way. (Keep) --Joy (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as dab page. Have added dates to make it more useful for a reader looking for a "Pope Bob". PamD 08:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Long-term significance is just one consideration when determining the primary topic:
While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these:
1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
In most cases, the topic that is primary with respect to usage is also primary with respect to long-term significance; in many other cases, only one sense of primacy is relevant.
In a few cases, there is some conflict between a topic of primary usage (Apple Inc.) and one of primary long-term significance (Apple). In such a case, consensus may be useful in determining which topic, if any, is the primary topic.
The last sentence makes clear that "but RECENTISM" is not a valid argument. Editors need to give a good reason that PT2 outweighs PT1. In this case, I don't think there's a good argument that either of the other two Pope Bobs are primary "with respect to long-term significance" or that they have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." There is, however, a clear case to be made that people in the English-speaking world currently searching for "Pope Bob" are almost certainly looking to read about the current pope. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no primary topic. Definitely not a delete, could be a move to (disambiguation) plus a redirect Ivey (talk - contribs) 21:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT and LRT lines

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

Inadequate references given the amount of information present; Most, if not all, of the information present can be found on the main articles for the MRT, the LRT, and the individual lines. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main articles are too big. This is a good content fork. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that discuss these lines as a group, beyond an LTA map (ref 3), so WP:NLIST is not met. I am also very concerned by the huge amount of content – most of the sources are news articles, which cannot possibly verify all of these details (though I haven't checked all of them. S5A-0043, you contested the PROD, do you have an opinion here? Toadspike [Talk] 14:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I removed the PROD is because I felt it is possible to challenge the PROD and thus make it controversial. The first two sentences in the original PROD can be countered with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, and there may be an argument that redirecting/merging to other articles (such as redirecting to Transport in Singapore) is a viable WP:ATD (though I hadn’t thought over how to best execute this exactly). I don’t really have a strong personal opinion on this matter, but the reasons I could think of not deleting makes me think that an AFD is a better venue to decide the article’s fate rather than a direct PROD. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 15:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity (journal)

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any coverage of this journal in independent secondary sources, only primary ones. Fails WP:NJOURNAL. ApexParagon (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ApexParagon (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it fails NJOURNALS. It's indexed in Scopus and EBSCO. Nobody (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Nichols

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

Sources for person covered by the article appear to be minor awards and not especially significant, and may not rise to the level required by WP:ANYBIO Noleander (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin–Stout Blue Devils

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability. The article has no content more a brief introduction, and only one source. It has been redirected to the UW Stout page, but that edit was reverted by user @BeanieFan11:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fma12 (talk • contribs) 18:02, May 11, 2025 (UTC)

Keep. Virtually every NCAA athletic program is notable and gets extensive coverage. E.g. just Wisconsin-Stout's football team has plenty of sources to show for notability, and some of just the football team's seasons are notable, and further, Newspapers.com brings up hundreds of thousands of articles relating to the team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Over 11 decades of coverage of the football team alone (1, 2, 3), which is one of 20 athletic teams at Wisconsin-Stout. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the football team is notable because of its sources and in fact, it has its own article. But we are here talking about of the UW Stout athletics program article, which does not have any content more than a brief summary. No information about the varsity sports, program history, rivalries, or anything related to it. Fma12 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are talking about the notability of the football team, but what about the Stout program itself? Fma12 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There might be a story or two in 114 years. JTtheOG (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what a 30-second search yielded: 1, 2, 3 JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Bractecki, A.; Dembicka, D. (January 1969). "Structure and properties of oxycations. IV. Spectroscopic studies on complex compounds with some organophosphorus ligands". Inorganica Chimica Acta. 3: 59–64. doi:10.1016/S0020-1693(00)92447-2.

[2] Ortolano, T. R.; Selbin, J.; McGlynn, S. P. (1 July 1964). "Electronic Structure, Spectra, and Magnetic Properties of Oxycations. V. The Electronic Spectra of Some Vanadyl Complexes". The Journal of Chemical Physics. 41 (1): 262–268. doi:10.1063/1.1725631.

[3] Barbosa, Luis Antonio M. M.; van Santen, Rutger A. (1 December 2003). "Study of the Activation of C−H and H−H Chemical Bonds by the [ZnOZn] 2+ Oxycation: Influence of the Zeolite Framework Geometry". The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 107 (51): 14342–14349. doi:10.1021/jp030394r.

[4] Madan, S.K.; Donohue, A.M. (May 1966). "Co-ordination compounds of oxycations thorium (IV) and molybdenum (V) with 2,2′-bipyridine-1,1′-dioxide". Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry. 28 (5): 1303–1311. doi:10.1016/0022-1902(66)80458-X.

[5] We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

[7] Gilman, Todd. "Comparative Literature: Primary, Secondary & Tertiary Sources". Yale University Library. Archived from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved February 10, 2017.

[8] "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: Secondary". libguides.jcu.edu.au. Queensland, Australia: James Cook University. Retrieved October 22, 2020.

[9] "Primary and Secondary Sources". Ithaca College Library. Archived from the original on June 18, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017.

[10] González, Luis A. (2014). "Identifying Primary and Secondary Sources". Indiana University Libraries. Retrieved March 18, 2021.

[11] Sanford, Emily (2010). "Primary and Secondary Sources: An Overview". Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan. Archived from the original on 22 September 2011.

[6] See for example:
Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[12] Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[13] Knowlton, Steven. "Primary sources: A guide for historians: Introduction". Princeton University Library.

[14] Lee, Corliss. "Finding Historical Primary Sources: Getting Started". UC Berkeley Libraries.

[15] Bell, Emily. "Library Research Guide: History of Science: Introduction: What is a Primary Source?". Harvard University Library.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]