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

< March 21	March 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sun Ningkai

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

Making the global final on its own isn't enough to make the subject notable if he doesn't already have in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. A google search doesn't yield any coverage of him, though perhaps he is gaining local coverage in China as a result of making a global final in his home country. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made it to the final in the top event of his sport. Several good sources. He is the top of his sport with a World Championship final. WP:GNG applies. As well as point #7 at wikipedia:NTRACK which makes him notable within Wikipedia:Notability (sports).BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just cleaned up the article a bit. I'll withdraw my nomination if you can find the WP:THREE best sources demonstrating his notability. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wig wag (washing machines)

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

This is a nearly 20 year old article, but it's remained basically completely unsourced. There's no content to demonstrate that this mechanism is independently notable. Performing a search only results in links to repair forums and product listings, not encyclopedic coverage. MidnightMayhem 23:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTGUIDE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, fails WP:SIGCOV. Chippla360 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I can't access aka.tv, but the other sources only contain routine corporate announcements. aka.tv is a trade publication and is unlikely to contain non-routine coverage per WP:TRADES. Winning some obscure industry awards does not count towards WP:NCORP. I was unable to find any non-routine coverage. Deproded in 2019. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and England. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely self-promotional; fails WP:GNG Variety312 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Anood Al Obaidly

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

I don't think this person is notable enough. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to prove its notability فيصل (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a lot of coverage already in the article. I will check through it and add more info from it to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY based on the work by RebeccaGreen. Good job so far! Bearian (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:ARTIST. She 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. The sources are not the reliable sourcing needed. Much of the coverage is local and within that, many sources are announcements of exhibitions, including student exhibitions. Several sources are "pay to play", membership required for listing, etc. Quantity does not equal quality. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with WomenArtistUpdates. RolandSimon (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinola (Energy Orchard album)

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

Article has been unsourced for more than a decade, and I couldn't find any good stuff to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -Samoht27 (talk) 06:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allmusic has a rating (no review, so is not useful for notability), but it is a source for the track listing and credits. Peter James (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Energy Orchard. ~~The album hit #53 in the UK Official Charts (link), but apart from this and the allmusic rating not much to go on.~~ A redirect to the band makes sense as an WP:ATD, and enables the article to be easily resuscitated if coverage is identified. ResonantDis_tortion 18:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any other opinions on Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarovar Hotels & Resorts

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

This article fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search yields only routine business coverage, such as partnership announcements, acquisitions, and press mentions. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There are 8 sources [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], but they are related to the hotel owner, and while her name is mentioned in the news, they are not reliable. I tried searching for sources in Hindi and Marathi, but none were found.
AShiv1212 (talk) 13:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sarovar Hotels is one of the earliest chain of midmarket hotels in India. They are pioneers in this segment. Scenecontra (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are unreliable and PR stuff. No SIGCOV sources found. Fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 20:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Osborne

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

There is a lot that Osborne says about herself, which would be OK if it were complemented by independent sourcing, but I have not been able to identify any, and there's no indication she meets N:AUTHOR nor that her books are notable. Star Mississippi 23:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Maryland, and New York. Star Mississippi 23:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was hoping this would be useful as a book review [9], but the "contact us" section explains how to send in a book for promotion... I don't see any other reviews for this author, so we don't have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This might be reliable, but that's all I can find. She has been a finalist for several major awards, but hasn't won yet. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With sources found in a quick search, and the one provided by Bearian, I think there's enough critical reception of her works to likely pass WP:NAUTHOR. They've been added to the article. Book Marks (review aggregator) has some more reviews for Architects of Memory listed here. Bridget (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Freesfonline.net also lists reviews of her short stories (all from Tangent Online and Locus magazine) at this page. AudioFile magazine reviewed the audiobook for Architects here. I've added most of these to the article in this edit. Bridget (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I changed my !vote per WP:HEY. Excellent work by Bridget to rescue this article. If anyone is looking for a researcher, I recommend her. Bearian (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Al-Kafraini

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

Declined prod with the rather weak reason "Also has a foreign Wikipedia page". The Arabic page is basically the same without in-depth coverage. Lacks coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Jordan. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it seems like this page was created under an incorrect name. I found several alternate names for the subject (which I created as redirects) revealing a few other accomplishments going beyond simply competing at the Olympics. For example, he finished 13th at the 2001 Mediterranean Games 5000 m and was the only Jordanian athlete at the 2008 World Cross Country Championships (had to create redirects for both of these names). According to Tilastopaja he also competed at the 1999 Arab Games where he finished 4th in his heat.

Unfortunately as there are at least 9 names for the subject in use, that makes searching for coverage difficult. There are also thousands of Jordanian newspaper hits making the search more difficult. But I think there's enough here to demonstrate that based on known accomplishments, sources should exist. --Habst (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leading international Jordanian athlete. 109.38.153.179 (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not an argument for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD to Jordan at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Athletics. This preserves the history in case further investigation uncovers more sources, which can't always be done against the clock, as here. Ingratis (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jordan at the 2000 Summer Olympics: Just database sources, but a plausible case that more sources might exist, so redirect to keep the page history available for future researchers and editors should sources be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion divided between Keeping or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital, Ondo

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

The organisation exists but sourcrs are primary or do not provide in-depth coverage. Only similar other sources found. Fails WP:Sigcov. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case the article is kept, please remove the Ondo on the title as University of Medical Sciences Teaching Hospital is red linked and "Ondo" is an unnessesary disambiguator. Thanks and No opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 16:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in Amsterdam

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

The first list is arbitrary, none of them have an article. For michelin stars, we already have List of Michelin-starred restaurants in the Netherlands Dajasj (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Netherlands. Dajasj (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The first list is arbitrary, but it does have 2-3 references. The restaurants can be added or removed. There is also the page List of restaurants in Rotterdam, List of restaurants in New York City, List of restaurants in London, List of restaurants in Paris, List of restaurants in Vienna etc. Many capital cities have their own list of restaurants pages. This page's list of Michelin restaurants in Amsterdam is clearer and complete. The Rotterdam and New York City pages also have arbitrary lists. So a city specific list of restaurants is permitted and useful, because it's specifically about restaurants in that city for a quick overview. -Artanisen (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. While restaurant lists for large cities are justified given the abundance of lists, guides, and articles out there, this particular article exemplifies how not to construct such lists. Although AFDISNOTCLEANUP, the current structure of this article is so poor that we are better off without it. If this happens to be changed into a list with a positive net value during the AfD, please ping me. gidonb (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, why are these pages still on Wikipedia: List of restaurants in Rotterdam, List of restaurants in New York City, List of restaurants in London, List of restaurants in Paris, List of restaurants in Vienna etc? The article structure is not really worse than those other city restaurant lists. Artanisen (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is far worse! Here we get an endless list of restaurants proposed to be notable, a largely empty table, very few links, and a rediculous reliance on prestigious restaurant listings as if these were our new P&G. This list is as half baked and wrongly baked as lists can get! It's so extreme that WP is better off without this list in its current state. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:LISTN. Obviously there are a number Michelin star restaurants that are notable but these are already on a separate article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever problems were identified seem to have been resolved. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Gaziantep attack

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

Blantant violation of WP:NOTNEWS. This is lack any WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Additionally, this feels like a WP:POV article, most of the sources are affiliated with Turkish Goverment. The creator is also known for creating POV-pushing articles. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kurdistan Workers' Party#July 2015–present: Third insurgency, or at least use some of the sources to add a sentence to that section. I realise this article is fairly new, but the creator doesn't seem to have read all their sources - one states that the number killed rose to 3 (not 2 as in the article), and that the attacks were carried out by the PKK's Syrian branch, the YPG (perpetrators only named in the info box as the PKK). RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to target suggested above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Moderate Democratic Movement

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

Fails WP:ORG; the article topic is a defunct provincial political party with insignificant results in the one election it contested. Accordingly, a search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor party with no significant coverage to establish notability. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mymensinghi language

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

Unverifiable. There is no such thing called 'Mymensinghi language'. According to the classification by linguists, it is a typical Eastern Bengali dialect. None of the cited sources in this article call this dialect as a language of its own. There is no reliable source in this article to support these type of false statements. The WP:Hoax article is very much misleading to the wikipedia readers. So, it should be deleted. Snusho (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "Language" and "Dialect" is interchangable in Bengali language. Sometimes we Bengali people call any dialect as "language". So, if the sources call it as a dialect then it is not a hoax. Saying a dialect "typical" is not actually policy based argument. If the title is so misleading then renaming is the best way, not deletion. And articles about dialect can be notable. So I will say ~~keep~~ (until someone can disprove its notability with source analysis). Mehedi Abedin 14:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We Bengalis call our regional dialects as "ancholik bhasha" in Bengali language. We don't call distinct languages like Hindi, Mandarin, Arabic as ancholik bhasha. Language and dialect are not same thing in linguistics. The source titled "Bengali language and dialect, Sukumar, Ananda publishers" doesn't exist. The Banglapedia source [10] discusses about the term 'dialect' but doesn't call the dialect of Mymensingh as 'language'. Some sources like this and this are not reliable. These sources also don't call this dialect as a 'language' of its own. Most of the informations written in the article are misleading. Grierson and Sukumar Sen classified the dialect of Mymensingh district as Eastern Bengali/Bangali dialect. So, this article is not notable. Snusho (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I support delete. Mehedi Abedin 17:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no such language called “Mymensinghi language”. People of Mymensingh Division speaks Bengali, but their dialects or pronunciations have slightly changed overtime. It’s common in different regions of Bangladesh. But the main language is Bengali. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 18:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support moving it to Mymensinghi dialect instead of deleting. The article is well developed. Mymensinghi isn't a language, it's a dialect. I myself am a Mymensinghi speaker, but we recognise Bengali as our language. I've never seen anyone claiming Mymensinghi to be an independent language like Sylheti or Chittagonian. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Ahammed Saad. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 18:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are not so much substantial things to say about this dialect. According to linguists like Dr. Rameshwar Shaw and Gopal Halder, the dialect of Mymensingh is one of the 'Standard East Bengali' or 'East Bengali General' varieties of Bengali language. The phonological and morphological characteristics of 'Standard East Bengali' varieties are almost identical. Almost all of the phonological characteristics described in this article are already mentioned in the article 'Eastern Bengali'. The article is also not notable. Snusho (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Than I support it's merger with Eastern Bengali article. I oppose it's deletion, cause, after all, the article is well developed and can fit as a section in the Bangali dialect article. Also, in the case of Bangladesh, it's notable because Bangladesh is a monolingual country, so people here like to identify themselves by their regional or dialectal characteristics. Mymensinghi of course is one of the most prominent of these, in comparing with Dhakaiya, Noakhailla, Rangpuri, Sylheti or Chittagonian. So it's quite notable I guess and it shouldn't be deleted, rather be merged. Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above discussion.Purnalakshmi (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for the merge to Eastern Bengali?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. The trite expression is that a language is a dialect with an army. But seriously, although there is a self-consciousness of a separate language, there's no scholarly consensus on this. Bearian (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also no self consciousness of a seperate 'language'. I haven't seen anyone claiming it a seperate 'language'. The sources that used to call it a seperate 'language' either do not exist or are unreliable. The pronunciation of Bengali has changed slightly in each district of Bengal region. We Bengalis call these regional dialectal variations 'ancholik bhasha' in Bengali. It doesn't mean seperate 'language'. In West Bengal, this dialect is called 'Bangal bhasha' (Bangali dialect). Scholars also call the Mymensingh variety as 'General East Bengali'/Bangali. The 'Eastern Bengali' article is sufficiently big, there's no need to include more content to it. There are also not so much substantial things to say about this dialect. There are not significant coverage of reliable sources in that article. Most of the sources are unreliable. So, I had nominated the article for AfD discussion instead of merging. Snusho (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Democratic Alliance

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

Fails WP:ORG; the article topic was an unregistered party formed from a merger between several minor parties with insignificant results in contested elections. This party specifically never participated in an election. Accordingly, a search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 21:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 21:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor short-term party with no significant, in-depth coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Nationalist Party of British Columbia

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

Fails WP:ORG: Defunct provincial political party with insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote) and, accordingly, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. This article was deproded by Bearcat in 2010 with the explanation "Any political party that's run candidates in a provincial or federal election is notable; election isn't getting proper coverage otherwise," but this is not a proper reading of notability policy. Yue🌙 21:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 21:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor short-term party with no significant, in-depth coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council of Churches in Pakistan

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously speedy deleted. Created in violation of WP:PEACOCK. Cannot find sources. Only sources found online are Template:Third-party violations. Roasted (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Pakistan. Roasted (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian Conference of Asia: I am not seeing any independent WP:SIGCOV of this organization (although if it exists in other languages, I am open to reconsidering my !vote, please ping). However, as an affiliate of the Christian Conference of Asia we can redirect there per WP:BRANCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The urdu wikipedia already has a page on it with a few sources, that are generally independent from the organization. it seems that many sources will probably be in Urdu as well. Alexthegod5 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexthegod5 Of the three links on the ur-wiki page, two are to the organization's own website and one is to the World Council of Churches, of which this org is a member. Those are not remotely independent. Unless we see true SIGCOV in truly independent sources, there's no pass here of WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The organisation is indexed across two pages (603-604) in the "Encyclopedia of Christianity in the Global South" Volume 2 edited by Mark A. Lamport, Rowman & Littlefield, 2018. There's discussion on pages 28, 116 of "Christianity in South and Central Asia" edited by Kenneth R. Ross, Edinburgh University Press, 2019. Played a role in the amendments in 2024 to the Christian Marriage Act that raised marriage age to 18 (presviously 13(!) for girls and 16 for boys) [11] [12]. There are sources, so WP:NEXIST, however, can understand a redirect for the moment. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Descent Into Madness (EP)

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

The only coverage I could find on this album is already present in the article, and I'm not convinced that's enough for notability. Half of the sources are routine news coverage, which isn't typically counted toward notability unless there's an overwhelming amount of it, and the other half are reviews from websites which I'm not convinced of the reliability of. Boolin Tunes maybe has potential, but I'd need to see it discussed first, while New Transcendence and Metal Noise are both blogs with very few writers and no evidence of an editorial policy or anything else that makes a proper publication reliable. If, at best, there is one reliable review for this album, I don't believe the subject is notable, and you can understand why I redirected it in the first place and think that it should remain a redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I added more notable sources, would the article be allowed to remain? Doomed Shadow (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what the sources are. If it's more routine news coverage then probably not (oftentimes, reporting on album announcements/single releases are just based on press releases and don't contain much original reporting, so they aren't highly valued in terms of reliability). If there are reviews I missed, or anything else based on original writing, then there's a better chance. Some of that could also come out in the future; a huge amount of an album's notability comes about around the time of its release, but there are also opportunities later on such as year-end lists or late chart appearances. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Goheen

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

Candidate in upcoming Canadian federal election with no independent claim of notability outside of being a candidate. Just running in an election is not sufficient to make you notable enough for an article.

(I requested speedy deletion which was denied; it has been a long time since I did this and I forgot the process.)

Madg2011 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Madg2011 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Outside of running for office, this is a very non-notable individual. Does not meet NPOL at this time. Should he win, might be notable. I don't see anything for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tweedledum and Tweedledee (comics)

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

Minor villains in the Batman comics. A search yields only one small hit from Bleeding Cool, which is largely a plot summary of an appearance of the characters, with no other significant coverage beyond trivial mentions of the characters' existence. No indication of notability, and a failure of WP:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: T in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashiana Housing

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like fundraising, profit reporting, new real estate project launches, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE, even taking Indian media with a grain of salt. I see pages of news articles on Google News about the company itself and its developments. The article needs updating and adding sources, but that's not the point of AfD. Bearian (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Party of British Columbia

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

Absence of reliable, in-depth coverage of both the 2001–2009 party, which this article's scope was originally limited to, and the 2023–present party, details of which were added after Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023) was deleted following a discussion (thus an attempt to circumvent the deletion process). Both parties were insignificant in the provincial elections they contested in, garnering less than a thousandth of a percent of the popular vote and barely exceeding 1 percent of a riding's vote in their best results.

The sources cited for the 2023 iteration of the party focus on the anti-SOGI advocacy of the party leader as one part of the much wider anti-SOGI movement in Surrey, British Columbia. The party is not covered in-depth nor the focus. Yue🌙 23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Draftify (ATD) only if COI issues are resolved.~~ The article really needs a "Do OVER". Everything in the "Election results" section was deleted as a BLP violation. Concerns: The article was previously deleted. Although created by Kevintoronto, 28.3% of the content was edited by Amrit.Birring. There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest. Draft:Freedom Party of British Columbia 2023 has been submitted to WP:AFC, which will likely suffer the same issues as it has been declined publication several times. NOTE: The subject does have some notability. A minority party can create a conundrum in those political circles. The party and apparent COI editor did show up with candidates and results in Surrey North, Surrey-Newton, and likely more. The party has a platform and, as of March 2025, was listed among "Registered Political Parties". For inquiring minds. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I removed "draftify". The sources: I could not find significant and independent reliable sources, that at least is "mainly" about the "party that was". My comments above accidentally crossed up the defunct party with the 2023 party. While a defunct corporation can be temporarily "revived" (under certain conditions), no sources show that a defunct political party can be revived. The party, which will inevitably involve names of living persons, requires better sources for compliance.

Current sources:

1)- Magher, Jennifer is a non-English source that is about Counter-protesters for LGBTQ+ rights and opposition protesters demanding the removal of policies that integrate sexual orientation and gender identity into B.C. schools.
2)- Thayarapan, Arrthy is more about "Opponents of sexual orientation and gender-identity policies bring Surrey school board meeting to halt"
3)- [a] more about clashes, [b] "Petition filed to recall Surrey MLA Rachna Singh", [c] "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
4)- Bower, Angela, "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
5)- Burns, Anna, "Saturday’s anti-SOGI protest in Surrey was a missed opportunity to educate, says Surrey teacher" more protests and a missed opportunity.

The creating editor might have missed that this is a political piece. This, in my opinion, places it in the middle of What Wikipedia is Not. "NOT" a place for promotion, advocacy, place to right great wrongs, a place to advance political causes, a newspaper, and certainly not a political battleground. Such articles must be written neutrally. While a political pundit could attempt to argue away some of these, it only takes one to justify removal.-- Otr500 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I didn't even catch the possible COI edits. Seems to me like the article for the 2023–present party was deleted after a discussion (as noted above) and the article's creator (possibly the leader himself), just moved some of the content to this nomination's article, which was originally just about the 2001–2009 party. As you pointed out though, most of the existing sources are about the political protests relevant to (but not focused on) the leader of the 2023–present party. Remove that and all the COI edits, and you're left with nothing of significance for either iteration of the party name. Yue🌙 22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted two inappropriate closes by an IP editor. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aydoh8, Thank you. You are right about nothing being left if all the problematic sources and edits were deleted. I dig pretty deep, trying to prove that an article has merit to remain. My laptop was getting old and would bog down after sometimes opening three browsers and around 40 to 60 tabs, so I purchased a new PC. I removed the ATD not just because of the COI (an issue and the user has had previous notification), but I agree there appears to be some side-stepping. I didn't dig into any COI timelines. Some people don't know. If someone has been advised and made edits, it is usually caught. There is a Username policy and an organization leader, not even counting if they are an SPA, might end up with someone curious looking at the "User creation log" unnumbered (Bulleted) #4. Whew! Since I am not an Admin, I will bail out of this before I get a migraine. Again, thanks. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature as an AtD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cords Cable Industries Limited

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an actual, real manufacturer of physical goods, there is likely notability. I see lots of potential news sources. Cf. Some of the other companies nominated by this nominator in one fell swoop. Bearian (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing these news sources. I really appreciate it. After looking through them, I see they mainly cover stock prices and earnings reports which are WP:ROUTINE. None of them appear to align with WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational intelligence

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

18-year-old article that reads far more like an essay, is devoid of sources or further reading materials, has no substantial improvements over the years. Effectively unsalvageable even though the term itself is notable and important. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This doesn't look bad enough to justify WP:TNT to me. The subject trivially meets WP:GNG, as the nomination notes. Per WP:ATD, the existing content can be stubbified in favor of deletion if improvements are not forthcoming. Suriname0 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone comes forward to try to rescue this mess, I'm afraid that it's better to start over. Ping me if you're making a real effort. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. Nomination indicates the term is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I agree with the sentiment that the term itself is notable and important, the problem is the term's broadness. It's not a specific thing, like a book. It's possible to write prose describing this term in different ways. The definition may be substantively different from person to person, industry to industry. I'd argue that due to the lack of any sourcing to support it's current definition that the current state of the article is functionally WP:OR. In this way, while WP:N dictates that The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article <...> does not indicate that a subject is not notable... editors are strongly encouraged to... consider the possibility that sources may still exist, I think the encyclopedia is benefited more with deletion and allowing an interested editor start from scratch (and some sources). I toyed with the idea of trying to find a source to swap to a Keep vote to stubify, but I admit I don't believe I have the research skill for such a non-specific term. —Sirdog (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I see discussion of this in some books, so it's better to provide an opportunity for growth rather than to delete what exists entirely. BD2412 T 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per BD2412. TheLongTone edited for grammar, but apparently and understandably has given up. Bearian (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got the feeling that sensitive copyediting could reduce this to an empty page...TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Judgmental language

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

I agree with User:Knucmo2 from 19 years ago that this is OR. Judgmental language is not standardly classified as a fallacy, and it would not be a form of red herring if it were. Patrick (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Barbosa

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

When 13 games in Malaysia is his verifiable career, the article would need several pieces of significant, independent coverage to meet GNG and SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find such coverage, of this player with a fairly common name for a Brazilian. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did a WP:BEFORE and didn't really find anything about the player. Svartner (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quality press

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

Redirect to Mass media in the United Kingdom#Newspapers. While there is WP:SIGCOV about the "quality press", this unsourced material is a complete overlap of identical charts on Mass media in the United Kingdom and List of newspapers in the United Kingdom, where it is covered with better context. More context, understanding, and readability, a build out of this topic is better on the more complete page. In addition, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Longhornsg (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United Kingdom. Longhornsg (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Joseph (Haitian American lawyer and politician)

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

Run-of-the-mill local politician no more notable than any other. He did things for his town, yes, but I see no actual significance here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Sayem (Cyber Criminal)

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

Declined A7. Lesser-known internet criminal. Sources only mention the subject in passing, and they do not seem to support individual notability. Fails WP:NCRIMINAL. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Bangladesh. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think we should remove this article. Deshi Aura (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems to be the only coverage about this person [13] and it's hardly enough to show criminal notability. Not meeting notability requirements, the lack of sourcing isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ewww. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's hardly enough to show criminal notability. Not meeting notability requirements, the lack of sourcing isn't helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deshi Aura (talk • contribs) 05:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per User:CycloneYoris Variety312 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polyrotaxane-based paint

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

All sources about this topic aren't about polyrotaxane-based paints as a category of substances, but of one particular product made by Nissan circa 2012 (and every single reference I could find is from 2012 or 2013, and rather trivial). Polyrotaxanes are a notable class of compound, but I'm not convinced by the sourcing that this one product is notable, and certainly not "polyrotaxane-based paints" as a whole. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge orr redirect: to an article about polyrotaxanes. I can't find anything about this type of paint, but there is sourcing about the "poly" thing as a chemical compound. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please point to a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 20:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- DELETE Removed my earlier vote of MERGE. Reasoning: I was trying to source the statement that Nissan uses this in their scratch shield coating, but could not find anything certain. A review paper published in 2024 commented that "the exact scientific technology has not been clearly revealed" for these coatings(https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202302463). Given there is no certain information about polyrotaxane paints, this article should be deleted.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icepop

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

Not a notable singer/musician. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:BIO. Frost 09:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out regarding the deletion discussion for Icepop. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify its significance and address any concerns.

I believe this article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as Icepop has received coverage from multiple reliable and independent sources. It is a recognized entity within its field and has made a meaningful impact, which is why I believe it deserves inclusion.

Additionally, I am open to improving the article further by adding more citations, expanding on notable aspects, and ensuring it adheres to Wikipedia’s quality standards. If there are specific areas that need work, I’d love to collaborate to enhance its credibility rather than removing it entirely.

I kindly request reconsideration and would love to hear any constructive feedback on how we can strengthen the article.

Here are some reliable sources that "Icepop" is a notable singer -

https://www.youtube.com/@iicepop/videos

https://open.spotify.com/artist/01NEdQ10ZjH4Oldy7vFgnb

https://music.apple.com/us/artist/icepop/1749415272 Whatsupguysm (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are notable, we don't consider social media as reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. References include subject’s own social media accounts that do not meet WP:RS. Subject has not won critical attention for their work or been honored with any significant industry awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variety312 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here are just a few press releases that he's on there are way more on the actual page, there is a ton of information on other wiki's too so it easily meets the WP:RS & WP:N lines

also on an article on wikipedia too: oh she right - icepop

https://www.electricsunshinecult.com/post/icepop-unfiltered-the-rising-star-talks-music-inspiration-and-what-s-next

https://prfree.org/@artistpressofficial/teen-artist-icepop-is-breaking-through-with-genre-bending-sound-wpixb6i9xyqy

https://prfree.org/@artistpressofficial/icepop-breaks-into-the-music-scene-with-genre-bending-darkwave-post-punk-sound-oh7td9cshvet Whatsupguysm (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases do not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Reliable sources Variety312 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are not used to show notability; if these are the only sources you can provide, you're proving why this person is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 20:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established based on the sources provided. The majority of press releases are hosted on a site that allow self-publication, which does not meet WP:RS, neither does the artist's own webpage or social media. It may be the influence of these sources, but the article also reads as quite WP:PROMO in its tone. Dfadden (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Growing recognition", has not performed live and tables showing nothing has charted, anywhere. This is a non-notable singer. You have to meet some of the MUSIC requirements to at least be considered for an article. There is nothing here except for a PROMO attempt. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Fish

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

This article fails WP:GNG WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As much as I'd love this to be the same person [14], there is nothing about this athlete to be found. The name seems rather common. Fishmonger named Joe Fish would be perfect, but not notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable with coverage such as this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Island Party

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

Delete or redirect to Robin Richardson, as the party fails WP:ORG. Of the 7 sources provided, 4 are primary sources, 2 are secondary sources providing routine coverage (i.e. not in-depth), and 1 is a secondary source (the CBC article) covering the party's founding.

I found at least eight other secondary sources that mention the party in passing, and they are all 1. Local coverage of local candidates in the one election (2017) that the party contested; 2. Routine and mention the party briefly as an affiliation of one of the candidates; 3. Subsidiaries of one of two publishers, Postmedia Network or Today in BC. There is no coverage by secondary sources outside of routine election coverage.

The party contested one election (in 2017) and received 641 votes, or 0.03% of the popular vote. Results-wise, its impact was insignificant. A lack of coverage beyond one election cycle and one by-election cycle (corresponding to one article in 2018) indicates a lack of significance overall.

Robin Richardson is a viable redirect or merge target, as the party was for the most part his initiative, and he is the most notable member of the party. Yue🌙 19:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 19:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed. Non-notable, not covered outside of routine coverage for one cycle. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Waheed

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

Fails WP:NBIO and no reliable references provided/avaialble. Only here for promotional purpose. Agent 007 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and United States of America. Agent 007 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, not worth cleaning up the incorrect formatting of sources. The sources are either primary or user generated. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. I note that Forbes used to be reliable, but is now for sale cheap. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the entire article is based on User:Adam Waheed, seems to be only notable as a result of social media. 3landscape (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked the userpage with (U5, G11) Agent 007 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearian and WomenArtistUpdates. This article was written by ChatGPT. It uses **text** for bold and links provided by it have the suffix utm_source=chatgpt.com. Do with that what you will. Cheers, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously??? per User:Agent VII Variety312 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanks of Mumbai

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

Non notable, list like article with no sources from 2009. Not notable as a list as no sources discussing about the topic of Tanks in Mumbai. Prodded by me and Bearian, was contested. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so the tanks was clearly a notable phenomenon in urban Bombay in colonial period, and is covered in literature. See for example The City and Its Fragments: Colonial Bombay, 1854-1918, The Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island (1909), Reclaiming (the Urbanism Of) Mumbai, Bombay, the City of Dreams: A History of the First City in India, The History of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, and so forth. Whilst the tanks are now a bygone phenomenon, it's worth noting that the colonial-era tanks legacy remains in street names. --Soman (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please add this information with links and pages? Bearian (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those occasions when one does want the Raj-era sources. ☺ There's an article to be had, here. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bombay Waterworks". Engineering. Vol. 1. Office for Advertisements and Publication. 1866-04-20. pp. 247–248.
- Tulloch, Hector (1872). "History of the water-supply of Bombay". The water-supply of Bombay, a report. Vol. 109. London: W. J. Johnson. (The water-supply of Bombay, a report at the Internet Archive)

Kevin (Sin City)

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

Reception is limited to a single listicle. Fails WP:GNG. Per ATD-R, could redirect to List of Sin City characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With less than 50 links coming into this article I would argue there's no point to a redirect either; this is just an average sidekick villain. Nathannah • 📮 22:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roark family#Kevin – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svartner, this article has been deleted so is not a suitable redirect target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the comment the article still exists. It can all be redirected to the List of Sin City characters. Svartner (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except is that list encyclopedic? But for as long as it exists, sure, that's a valid target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One proposed redirect target has been deleted. Redirect elsewhere or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. A cursory search finds at least one indexed article discussing the character at some length, although it is not clear to me whether this was peer reviewed. It would be somewhat surprising if there is not more literature. BD2412 T 03:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabiro Guitar

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

Article subject does not show up in any online searches except for YouTube and on social media accounts. All 13 of the article sources are from https://newtimes.co.rw, and none of them support the article text in any way—each is simply a puff piece listing upcoming concerts or providing promotion for various artists. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Rwanda. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Also some coverage here [15] and [16]. With what's now in the article, have enough for a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Classical Poets

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

Not really seeing enough reliable coverage to meet WP:NORG. Maybe the inauguration poem is notable, but even that has hardly gotten any coverage outside of its immediate publication. The only mention I found more recently was [17]. Found no sigcov of the society itself. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Organizations. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Weiner

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

Deputy mayors do not per definition pass WP:NPOL. For a crime perpetrator, Weiner does not pass WP:CRIM because the victim was not a renowned figure and the motivation was not unusual. I do not see enough substantive coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. May he rest in peace. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Crime. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Aly Kureshy

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

Akhtar Aly Kureshy has been a subject of a long-term promotional campaing in various wiki projects, including wikipedias in different languages, Commons, or even Wikisource (where the page had to be deleted repeatedly, always being recreated by a new account). The campaign seems to be led by different accounts, some of them having been globally locked, such as User:Jinnahpk, User:Wonderfulpak, User:Eassapk, User:Blackuk9 and others, but when this happens, they are quickly replaced by a new sockpuppet. Some of them can be found in the history of this article too.

Having a look at this article, I found out that it is seemingly well referenced, but in fact many of the references are false, as they either not contain anything about Kureshy, or promote some text written by Kureshy instead. I have checked about 10 randomly chosen sources, and they were all false.

For example, the leading sentence "is a Pakistani lawyer, jurist, advisor and senior advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan who served as Assistant Attorney-General for Pakistan" is referenced with three sources. The first one goes to the Pakistani Supreme Court page where there is nothing about Kureshy, and nothing is returned even after the name Kureshy is typed into the search box. The second one goes to some text written by Kureshy, which does not contain any information from the leading sentence. The third one goes to a page which does not contain anything about Kureshy either.

The whole section "Early life and education" is referenced by two sources, but they both link to non-existent pages.

The sentence "He appeared and conducted a number of high-profile cases representing Federation of Pakistan" is referenced by a web page, which in fact does not contain such information at all.

The sentence "Kureshy always have a neutral, unbiased perspectives that avoid taking sides or showing strong emotions and try to focus on presenting facts and balanced arguments without leaning toward one opinion or stance" is referenced by another text written by Kureshy, which does not contain the information from the sentence, and so it most probably serves only as a promotion of the linked text.

And so on...

As a result I suggest deleting this article. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks for your nomination. I did a thorough WP:BEFORE. Unfortunately, there is no independent coverage about this lawyer. Gheus (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please note that Who's Who is a deprecated source; it is no longer a reliable source, since they solicit information and money from people who have entries in their database. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North East Essex Unitary Authority

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

This is a body that would only ever come into existence under one of three sets of proposals, and it is not part of the Government's preferred plan. It's very existence is pure WP:Crystal Ball. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article created at the end of February 2025 with a "proposed timeline" that discusses things that might happen at the end of January 2025. Surely it was possible for the article creator to know facts at the time that the article was created? Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that something is proposed is not a good reason to delete it, nor does that make it WP:Crystal Ball. See our numerous items on proposed tunnels and bridges. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Notability is meant to be permanent: what notability will an administrative proposal that is never acted upon have in 10 years time?

WP:Crystal Ball states (para 1) "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is ... almost certain to take place." Logic surely dictates that the same be applied to local government organisations coming into being.

It continues (para 2): "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." This is from one of at least three lists, and not the list that the government is, according to reports, most likely to follow. There has been no meaningful specific (ie non generic) information released about the operation of the body, so the content is nothing but "original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation" (para 3) Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability, at least GNG, is permanent. If a subject is discussed by multiple independent reliable sources today, that doesn't change in the future.

Events that didn't take place can certainly be notable, for example Operation Sea Lion. So can places that were never created, and not even fully planned such as EPCOT_(concept), or that may never be created, Bitcoin City for example.

"Items from a pre-determined list" means things like the 2200 Summer Olympics or 2026 Nobel Prizes. Even there, we had an article for the 2020 Summer Olympics, which of course one could argue didn't take place, from 15 March 2005 (maybe a little early). We have one now for 2032 Summer Olympics.

It may be that this article is better folded into 2024–present structural changes to local government in England, or some other yet-to-be-created article. I don't think that a convincing case for deletion has been made yet.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Indrajit Sawant

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:AUTHOR, there is no significant coverage, most of it can be attributed to the controversial statements he has made. CharlesWain (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks independent sources. The given sources aren't enough coverage. Articles are more about subject talk on something rather than someone talking about him. Fails GNG.Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoo Ni Lola

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no awards or notable events found from GSearch and GNews Search. Strongest ref that I found from the archives just talks about their band's debut album launch together with nine other promising bands back in 1996. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the Allmusic article is reliable, but that's it. If you find two more reliable sources, ping me. (Note: the band's name could be a pun: lola in Filipino means 'grandmother' but also in slang means 'older gay platonic friend' - similar to auntie in United States LGBT slang. Thus, their name could equally refer to their grandmother's bottle of shampoo, or the sassy older gay hairdresser who's the maritess spilling tea.) Bearian (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the article I've linked, it's actually because they spotted a diner called Sopas ni Lola (Grandma's Noddle Soup) and then saw a shampoo commercial. They then mixed the two together and got the band's name. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kole-Kalyan railway station

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

This train station fails notability guidelines. Clearly not notable, i was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible, albeit not for me, to dig up the existence of the station from paywalled TOI newspaper archives and 1920s government reports. But from what clues I can glean they just say that a station was built and the year that it was built. Ironically, one third of the content of this 3 sentence article is about Kole-Kalyan (an erstwhile village now part of Santacruz, Mumbai) and not about the railway station, and is more easily verifiable than the parts about the railway station are. Uncle G (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Viegas, Vanessa (2021-04-16). "Once upon a time in Kalina: Tales from a Mumbai neighbourhood". Hindustan Times.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessential (company)

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

Fails notability test. It is not covered in any significant news, and the 4 references from those news sources covered the company once or twice. Its your ordinary real estate company out of millions. It is not really deserving of an article when they have not done anything notable. Also the article was once ghostwritten by a editor with a COI but was later fixed. In other notes, their LinkedIn profile only has 700 followers which only further proves non notability. DotesConks (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Companies. DotesConks (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found this article via the CoI notice board and agree that there doesn’t seem to be anything other than routine coverage (threadbare reports of the company buying and selling properties). OsFish 03:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's enough about this company to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I know there's a tendency to dismiss coverage about companies buying and selling assets as inherently WP:CORPTRIV, but I don't think that's the case here once you actually read the sources. There's plenty of coverage of this company buying and selling properties that also contains substantial analysis about the company and its strategy, and which doesn't fall into the category of standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage. I would say that these articles are the clearest examples: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. These ones are a little weaker, but still go somewhat beyond routine announcements in my view: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. And all of these sources are from the Australian Financial Review, the Sydney Morning Herald and The Australian, which are reliable sources that I would consider high-quality coverage for this kind of topic. I think this one will largely come down to interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH, but in my view enough of these sources provide an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization to satisfy WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless improved per WP:HEY this article created by a COI editor qualifies for WP:TNT. 🄻 🄰 17:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Dalton

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

This article has the appearance of being referenced at a glance, but the citations don't check out. Citations 1 through 9 do not mention Shane Dalton at all (I looked at the archive.org copy of each, most are offline now). Citation 10 mentions him in passing with a brief quote. Citation 11 mentions his name in a list of radio show guests. 12-13 and 15 are the same reference with no mention of him, 14 is a Youtube video of a game from 1988, 16-20 have no mention of him. So the only references that mention him are citations 10 and 11, and it's his name in a list and a brief quote.

He seems to be a well-liked member of a senior football club and someone did some very furious Googling for references on his behalf to stave off deletion of the article years ago, but the sourcing just does not seem to be there to meet WP:GNG and I don't see anything that meets WP:NSPORT for gaelic football or hurling, with no appearances in inter-county championships (as far as I can tell). Here2rewrite (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NGAELIC is met. While, as noted in the nomination, the article text/tone/refs/etc was in a very poor state (with many of the "references" broken, not mentioning the subject and not supporting the text), that is no longer the case. I've added several references which support the text. And contribute to notability. And, FWIW, largely removed the unsupported boosterism and FV issues. While much of the coverage (which deals with the subject as a primary topic) is in local/regional papers (including several decades of stuff in Dublin's Evening Herald), the piece in the Sunday Times sways me towards a keep. Guliolopez (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination My understanding was he didn't meet the notability policy, based on the state of the article at the time. Thanks to Guliolopez for improving the article, I see no reason to continue the AFD. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to close it out myself so I'll leave it open for someone else. --Here2rewrite (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoukath

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

Expedited PROD to AFD. Clearly not notable, no references on a BLP which is unacceptable, and has been ghostwritten by someone with a COI to the person in this article. DotesConks (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DotesConks (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close AFD and Delete somehow Can I suggest User:DotesConks that you stop doing quasi-admin type stuff like Prod removal, AFD creation, article renaming, starting ITN and closing discussions - because with only a few weeks of editing, it's quite clear that you don't know what you are doing. Most of what you are doing appears to be in good faith - but ... why would you ever, ever, ever, remove a Prod only to AFD the article? If you think that was appropriate, you are the last person who should be creating AFDs. Perhaps just stick to mainspace editing for a year or two, and leave this stuff to people with some experience. Nfitz (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz Hello Nfitz, I don't believe what I am doing is quasi-administrative stuff. This was out of a misunderstanding about how PROD and AFD worked. Now I know how AFD works and it won't happen again. I don't remember closing discussions, ITN nominations are normal, renaming is normal, and articles that are clearly unnotable should be deleted. So I'm simply taking up the work to do it. Are there things I get wrong? Yes, absolutely and I apologize for those errors. But I am simply trying to help the encyclopedia that has helped me.DotesConks (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said like - not did. There's certainly been other things as well. ITN nominations are normal? Very few people do an ITN nomination. I've been here for 20 years and I've never done one. But more seriously is the quality. You nominated a routine local government financing bill as "Super important". It's hard to assess just how many warnings have been given on your talk page this month alone - because you kept blanking it! Nfitz (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SENIORITY DotesConks (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIR WP:TBAN Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. WP:A7 (no indication of notability) and WP:G6 (cleanup) because the article was unreferenced, PRODded, and the PROD was removed shortly before expiry by an editor who wanted the article to be deleted anyway. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is unclear, you have to read a bit to understand that this is a religious person. It's badly written, with no refs. [33] doesn't seem to be about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. This shouldn't even be a topic of discussion, in my opinion. GSK (talk • edits) 14:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Rant

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

Appears below WP:NWEB, the most prominent source is on Ryan George YouTube videos. Related to the Valnet merges/additions, I suggest redirected to the section there. IgelRM (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites. IgelRM (talk) 16:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge and redirect to Valnet. BD2412 T 19:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Brevity and the Short Form in Serial Television (Edinburgh University Press) has coverage about the website and their approach. Briefly mentioned in The Comics World: Comic Books, Graphic Novels, and Their Publics (2021).University Press of Mississippi. The Hollywood Reporter article is also OK for notability imv. I didn't search that hard. Its content is also (as their About Us claims but also a ton of GBooks allow to verify) widely cited in other media. I don't think a Redirect is necessary. -Mushy Yank. 19:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has more than enough reliable sources and is notable. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – enough independent sources and coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Szondi test

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

I propose that the current version of the "Szondi test" article either be substantially revised or nominated for deletion on the following grounds:

1. Violation of Wikipedia’s "No Original Research" policy (WP:OR): The article draws a strong conclusion — that the Szondi test is discredited — based primarily on the 2006 Delphi poll by Norcross et al. This poll is an opinion-based survey, not empirical research. The article presents the poll's results as definitive, without critical context or attribution, which amounts to editorial synthesis — a form of original research prohibited on Wikipedia.

2. Lack of Reliable Secondary Sources (WP:RS): Beyond the Norcross poll, the article lacks citations to peer-reviewed sources that analyze the Szondi test in contemporary scientific or clinical contexts. It does not acknowledge recent or alternate views, particularly from psychoanalytic and projective traditions.

3. Ignoring Current Academic Discourse: A 2024 doctoral dissertation published via HAL – L’analyse projective dans le contexte clinique moderne (https://theses.hal.science/tel-04399147) – discusses projective methods including the Szondi test in a clinical and theoretical framework. This contradicts the portrayal of the test as entirely obsolete.

4. Over-reliance on a Single Source: The Norcross et al. (2006) study contains notable limitations. 36.6% of surveyed experts were unfamiliar with the Szondi Test. Moreover, the authors themselves state:

“Professional consensus does not equal an epistemic warrant; even experts can be and have been wrong.”

In summary, the article reflects a narrow and unsupported interpretation of the Szondi Test's scientific status and fails to meet multiple core Wikipedia content policies.

Tatiana Zhdanova (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use AI to write comments on Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The fact that you appear to have used AI for this comment is also the reason that all of it is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted. The article's current content -- OR, lack of RS, ignoring current discourse, relying on a single source -- is completely irrelevant to deletion. All that matters is whether reliable sources exist. This discussion should be closed quickly as keep per the many reliable sources on the article and lack of a coherent reason for deletion based on policy. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obvious keep. Nom fails to give a valid deletion criterion and the subject is obviously notable. First of all the sources already in the article establish notability. Secondly, there are literally hundreds of scholarly articles discussing the Szondi test. Here are just a few: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. If you're not happy with the current state of the article then edit it. Central and Adams (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is very bad rôte advice to be giving in these particular circumstances. This editor has gone about things the very wrong way, but definitely needs other independent editors's help here with editing the article. You are pushing towards a highly predictable kerfuffle down the line, which we should be avoiding having. Thoughtlessly brushing this off with "Your problem; edit it." is not the way to go here, because we know exactly where that leads in these circumstances. It is also very much not either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation policy in these circumstances. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tatiana Zhdanova per Uncle G, what you want here is cleanup tags, not AFD -- specifically Template:Original research, Template:Disputed, Template:Single source, and possibly Template:Reliable sources. The convention is to put them all in a Template:Multiple issues tag. After putting those on the article you can provide more details on the talk page, and then proceed to either (if nobody is there) make the changes you want, making sure to add new reliable citations that are better than the old ones, or (if somebody is there) discuss it with them.

However, people don't want to delete the article because even if its worse than nothing now, it could be better, in which case the policy is to keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your feedback and guidance.

You're right — while I continue to believe the article needs substantial improvement, I now see that deletion was not the best path forward. I’ll follow your advice and shift toward cleanup tags and proposed edits based on more diverse and recent academic sources. I’ll also move this conversation to the article’s Talk page to build consensus.

Also, a brief note of apology: as a relatively new editor, I did rely in part on AI assistance when drafting the AfD rationale. It was never intended to bypass Wikipedia’s policies — just to help me communicate more clearly in a non-native language and unfamiliar format. I now understand this is discouraged and will proceed more carefully going forward.

Thanks again for helping me learn the process and engage constructively.

Tatiana Zhdanova (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guoxiu Wang

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

Hello! I created this page but I have not noticed that the article caused the person unexpected distress, disrupted his life, and disturbed the peaceful routine he once had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caizilaile (talk • contribs) 10:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, almost a Speedy Keep. In my opinion the only person who might have standing to request a deletion is Guoxiu Wang himself. A statement from the nominator that Guoxiu wants it deleted is hearsay, so not relevant. While his h-factor is a bit inflated since he has worked as part of teams, it is still far beyond what is required for WP:NPROF#C1. His awards are not the best, but that is not needed here. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cited by over 80 000 papers per the Gscholar link above and a fellow (the FRSC) show that this person is more than notable for an academic. I'm unsure how this article would disrupt the person, they seem to be an editor of a peer-reviewed journal, that directly involves contact with the public. Oaktree b (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets C1 and C3 of WP:NPROF; one of those would be enough. Hard to argue that this is a private person when they "have given over 100 talks worldiwde" (although this assertion does need a citation). Qflib (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkered Past (album)

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

Generally with a seemingly nn album like this I would simply redirect. However in this case there is one editor persistently undoing such edits, so I am seeking a wider consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect to L.A. Guns. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asle og Alida

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

Article about an upcoming new opera, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, operas are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" solely to the self-published website of the opera company that's producing it, with no media coverage or analysis about it shown at all.
No prejudice against recreation later in the year if and when it does have adequate GNG-worthy coverage to satisfy inclusion standards, but a single primary source is not sufficient for it to already have an article now. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Norway. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found this news article and also this. Both are in Norwegian, for which I can only read a few cognates. Ping me if more information comes up. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Olive Branch mayoral election

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

Article about a smalltown mayoral election, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for local elections. As always, it's not our goal to maintain an article about every single mayoral election that takes place in every single town or city on the planet -- we can keep mayoral elections that have substantive context (specific actual issues at stake, specific policy proposals made by the candidates, etc.) and reliable sourcing to establish their significance, but we do not just indiscriminately keep articles about every single mayoral election that happens.
This, however, has no meaningful content beyond the name of a candidate, and is "referenced" almost entirely to primary sources (content self-published by the county and state elections offices) that isn't support for notability, except for one single news article in the local newspaper that isn't enough to make this notable all by itself -- and it's deeply unlikely that there will ever be any substantive new content to add, as the primaries are scheduled for April 1 yet as of March 22 there's still only one candidate running at all, meaning that it's likely to be a simple acclamation rather than a competitive election.
No prejudice against recreation in the future in the unlikely (though I won't say never) event that it actually does accrue a real basis for permanent notability, but we would need to see a lot more media coverage about it, supporting much more substantive content, than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mississippi. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SUSTAINED. Sal2100 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable election. Jordano^5³ 18:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WinAPIOverride

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

Reason Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only finding mentions in lists of computer forensics tools; not any in-depth on-point independent documentation of this specific software. There just isn't the sourcing to be had, apparently. As is so often the case for software articles that reach AFD, the article is badly sourced to just the creator's software project page, externally linked twice. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sargent

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

Heavily advertorialized WP:BLP of a chef, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for chefs. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs -- you don't make a person notable by citing his own self-published web presence as verification that he exists, you make a person notable by citing media coverage about him in sources independent of himself as verification that he garnered third-party attention.
But this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- his own cookbook being "cited" to itself, his own podcast, TripAdvisor -- except for a single piece of "local man does stuff" in the community hyperlocal newspaper of his own small hometown, which is not nearly enough media coverage to singlehandedly get him over WP:GNG all by itself.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this, and even if it can be salvaged with better sourcing it would have to be heavily rewritten for neutral point of view regardless. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ther does not seem to be anything of any substance to indicate this cook is notable. As stated above, the article is wall to wall vainglorious promotion. And I would not be surprised if the creating editor had an (errm) conflict of interest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Food and drink, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Limited amount of local coverage [40], but nothing about being an author or other claims to notability that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neotia University

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4 since it was a soft close, but no indication of notability. This is a private university. Star Mississippi 15:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and India. Star Mississippi 15:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Universities established by statute have always considered to be notable. Er. Manoj Roy (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not copy paste other editors' arguments. Star Mississippi 15:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, that wrong-grammatical-voice argument was rebutted quite thoroughly at the last AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: This university is a reputed institution of West Bengal. Er. Manoj Roy (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not !vote multiple times. I have struck the duplicate. Star Mississippi 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But not actually an in-depth independently documented one, as it seems that it's mainly documented through press releases. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy missed Harshavardhan Neotia as a possibility in the previous AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pollo Brujo

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

A chain with 10 locations just does not seem notable enough to me. There is some coverage, but it does not seem significant to me. One of the references used is an Ubereats link. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Latin America. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick look at the news tells us there is significant coverage on reliable sources. Also, as per nominator, it is ten locations IN GUATEMALA plus elsewhere, not ten locations only. Janette La Bruja Martin (dime?) 15:46, 22 March, 2025 (UTC)

Scanner (software)

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

Reason Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Not a lot of coverage. I found a paragraph each in a few sources: book 1, book 2, listicle. Considering the large number of disk analyzer programs, and how the books don't discuss what makes this program stand out, I lean towards deletion. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shan (Ming dynasty)

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

An fictional character, who does not exist at all. The Ming general in the Battle of Chi Lăng was Liu Sheng; moreover, the only source does not mention any general named Liu Shan, only mentioning Liu Shan, the emperor of Shu Han. Min968 (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oh and the article is copied word for word from this Fandom page: https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Liu_Shan_(Ming_dynasty) DotesConks (talk) 17:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to excuse the page creator, who is indef blocked for sockpuppeting and copyvio, but the Fandom page was imported from Wikipedia afterwards by Reguyla (another infamous user). --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - seems to be no (English) sources backing up this person's existence. --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs

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

Nothing more than a WP:POVFORK of List of wars involving India. Not to mention the blatant WP:OR done throughout this article. There was no single "Sikh" entity that fought the Mughals. Cobbling up all a bunch of empires as "Sikh" and creating out an article is totally misleading. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, India, and Punjab. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot find any sources that would support the existence of such a conflict. Even the WP:OR done here is far from anything factual. Lorstaking (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dubious POVFORK. I agree that the concept of the article is contrary to history. desmay (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Contardo

AfDs for this article:

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

I really wanted to simply mark this as reviewed, as "Those Magic Changes" was an incredibly influential song for me back in the 70s. However, a search turned up zero in-depth references from independent reliable sources about him. Was a soft delete back in 2023, which has apparently recently been contested. As an ATD, a redirect to Sha Na Na might be warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the Sha nana article seems ok, was the lead singer for a number of years. [41] Gnewspapers has all kinds of hits on his name, but always in context of the group. Or merge a small portion to the article about the band, I'd be ok with that too. Oaktree b (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Software CD

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

Fails WP:NSOFT: I could not find much coverage other than trivial mentions. The best coverage is a tiny 1-2 paragraphs on page 21 of this source. According to GScholar, this paywalled source also mentions it but I don't have reason to believe it's SIGCOV. This article was deproded. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. The Law Practice magazine article does not appear to be in-depth. I checked under the old osscd name from earlier versions of the article and the apparent new name. It's just not documented outwith its own WWW site offering a DVD image. and some "version N+1 is out!" announcements. Moreover, successive versions of this article track how that WWW site has moved around as hosting has vanished, so even that has been ephemeral. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dunlop (footballer, born 1957)

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

Fails GNG with a lack of SIGCOV. Not to be confused with his son who has the same name or the unrelated footballer with the same name. Dougal18 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be surprised if this would pass WP:BASIC given the career he has had. However there will be problems here, kinda the main issues are pre-internet. So we have to goto real published prints here. We know he played, and he has a son, so maybe a merge and redirect to the son. However I don't really want to do that, I would like to see someone actually do real research and make the article good. Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lekha Prajapati

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability has not improved significantly since the last AfD, with only five or six reliable sources covering it, some of which provide only trivial mentions. It fails WP:NACTOR. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 15:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:NACTOR, The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. But she wasn’t in lead in any notable movie which are listed in her filmography thus fails WP:NACTOR TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the article but please note that NACTOR does not require lead role(s), only significant roles (which includes lead roles, evidently). -Mushy Yank. 18:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First AFD, was closed as soft delete, and article was probably about some other actress or person, since this individual has been seen on films/web from 2019, and it first AFD was in 2017 not sure why first nomination is being considered for nomination Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG

1. Significant Roles in Notable Films & Web Series Lekha Prajapati has played key roles in commercially successful and widely released films, meeting the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR. Some of her notable works include:

iSmart Shankar (2019) – A major Telugu-language action film directed by Puri Jagannadh, which was a box office hit.
The Big Bull (2021) – A Bollywood film starring Abhishek Bachchan, released as a Disney+ Hotstar original film.
Fukrey 3 (2023) – Part of the popular Fukrey franchise, a well-known Bollywood comedy series.

In addition to her film roles, she has worked in prominent web series and digital content, making her a notable actress across multiple platforms, not just a one-time performer.

2. Multiple Independent Reliable Sources Coverage about Lekha Prajapati has appeared in multiple reliable sources that meet Wikipedia’s WP:RS guidelines, including:

These sources provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions, confirming her growing industry relevance.

3. Sustained Industry Presence & Recognition Lekha has been regularly featured in media interviews, film promotions, and publicized for her performances. Unlike minor actors with brief appearances, she has recurring roles in notable films.

4. Precedent & Fairness Many actors with similar or lesser credentials already have Wikipedia articles. Deleting this article would be inconsistent with existing precedents and unfairly dismiss an actress actively working in major productions. Thus Lekha Prajapati meets WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG through multiple significant roles, substantial media coverage, and continued relevance in the Indian film industry. Deleting her article would be premature and inconsistent with Wikipedia’s existing standards. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only few sources are not enough to eastablish notability guidelines, and the actress didn't play role in multiple significant (WP:NFO) films.Hellorld4 (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are you taking NFO here since NFO is films related not the cast?

3 popular web series, multiple music videos, one web show, and more than 3 films in supporting roles, I think thats the criteria for Wikipedia article of the actors.

about the sources, I’ve added the most I could find. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The BLP clearly passes WP:NActor, which requires significant roles and not just LEAD roles. It also passes GNG as sources are secondary and reliable. Davidindia (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please supply a human answer, and not an AI-generated one. Geschichte (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of wp:SIGCOV In Wp:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actors and recurring cast dont get significant coverage and having played in multiple commercial films passes WP:NACTOR. In this case seems RS is already covered sources are reliable. Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please refrain from using an LLM to phrase your arguments here. Your own words, even in a language not native to you, carry more weight than those of a machine.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: A non-trivial amount of coverage found in Indian media [42] this article isn't bad, while the rest are interviews, she does seem to be well-known. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Colchester

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

It's not necessary to have this article for every single city in England. The definition of a skyscraper does vary but the lowest bar that I know of is 100m. The tallest building in Colchester is 43m, so we're not even halfway towards having a skyscraper. Colchester is a wonderful city but is it really known for it's tall buildings? I would argue that it isn't. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy the below additional rationales for deletion from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Lörrach:

This topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Individual mentions of a handful of the individual buildings in this city do not automatically make an article about the heights of all of the buildings in that city a notable topic.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Colchester' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here. All of the cited sources mention the buildings in isolation and none discuss this group of three buildings together.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The city is not the largest in the UK nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building simply being more than 24m tall makes it notable. It's an incredibly low bar. Can you imagine the reaction if we set the bar so low on a similar list for Tokyo or Chicago? There would be literally thousands of towers in those lists.
The topic is already covered more than adequately at List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom, so this list is redundant. Yes, I am aware that none of the buildings in Colchester are actually tall enough to be in that list but that, if anything, speaks for just how non-notable this topic is! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must stress that setting the bar as low as 24 metres for inclusion is incredible and I've never seen a bar so low on these 'tallest buildings in x' lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the same stable as Central Colchester (AfD discussion), I see. And sourced to a tourism WWW site (which hasn't caught up with metric yet). I had a quick check, found some other guides to buildings in Colchester, and I was right. As a place that goes back to Roman times, no-one categorizes its buildings by how tall they are. They do things like doi:10.1080/03055477.2022.2153208 and The History and Description of the Walls of Colchester at the Internet Archive. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "list of tallest buildings and structures in x" article with only three entries is basically useless, not to mention a height of only 43 metres for the tallest building is hardly notable by Wikipedia standards. Procyon117 (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, all of which I agree wth, this does not appear to be sourced to any reliable comprehensive listing, so in essence is "Here are some buildings in the area that I reckon are fairly tall, and I have arranged them in order of height, but I have no idea whether there are others in the borough that are taller, nor what the next tallest is and why I drew the line for exclusion where I have." Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. None of the sources even verify that these are the 3 tallest buildings in Colchester, not that the list would be notable if such a source could be found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amusingly, you made me look, and from that I found that the list is wrong. And even then I am not sure that I actually found the tallest building, because the source was not documenting Colchester buildings by how tall they were, just at least one building higher than any on this list. But this article is from the stable that outright invented the idea of Colchester having districts, and now has produced North East Essex Unitary Authority (AfD discussion) I see. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Uncle G: You have me intrigued now... Kevin McE (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't want to give anyone any ideas, but it does have its own Wikipedia article and the height in the article has one digit mis-copied from the source. (I didn't find it through that article. So I was amused to see that the article was wrong, afterwards.) Uncle G (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Found it! (or at least a building that is taller, might not be the one you found) Kevin McE (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries

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

Unclear why this comparison would be a notable topic (plus WP:NOTGALLERY). Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and France. Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Incomprehensible and basically unreferenced (I mean comparison is unreferenced). --Altenmann >talk 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in line with other comparative charts for military ranks that have been kept for years. As shown in the introduction and history sections, gendarmeries across the francophone world commonly developed from the French gendarmerie that was made up of deployed personnel from France alongside locally recruited personnel. So, this article provides an easy view of the similarities between these forces, alongside the more interesting differences as seen in the cases of Mauritius and Vanuatu, where while acting as and being recognised as gendarmeries in the literature, follow British policing inspired rank systems, due to British colonial interests and history in these territories. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have shared shared a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History, as that is the Project with main interest in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are similar articles relating to comparative ranks and provides useful information. Just needs some improvement.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article provides important details about gendarmeries and their ranks. I suggest the article be improved as its a helpful resource.Frank Ken (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having received notification from the relevant WikiProject, I took a look at the article and sources, but couldn't find what the problem is other than minor editorial issues, so I decided to come here for more info. I totally agree with Cdjp1 and others. This is in line with other comparative charts especially in the military. It is notable with plenty of reliable sources, not to mention helpful to the general reader, and I see no problem here. Tamsier (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that the people of the MilHist project seem to like this article, but why? The text has no comparison of the ranks at all, just provides some background. The large gallery provides no context and has no clear relation to the article text. The implicit claims in the gallery (e.g. that a sergeant-major in Canada isn't comparable to a sergeant-major in Chad, or that a corporal in Tunisia isn't comparable to a corporal in Vanuatu) are unreferenced, and it is very unclear which of the 23 sources, if any, are actually about the comparison in the table, or whether this table is pure WP:OR, and whether any reliable sources actually do care about the comparison of Tunisian ranks with Vanuatuan ranks. Fram (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think editorial issues do not qualify for article deletion, considering this is notable.

Maybe we could move it for Gendarmerie ranks in general, and also include russian natonal guard, PAP and other agencies Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with Thehistorianisaac. As I've stated above, there are indeed editorial issues, which could be fixed, but that's not a ground for deletion. The issues could be fixed through our normal editing process, but the article is notable and warrants a stand-alone. Tamsier (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You both claim this is notable, but neither of you has responded to my question; which of the 23 sources, if any, are actually about the comparison in the table, or whether this table is pure WP:OR, and whether any reliable sources actually do care about the comparison of e.g. Tunisian ranks with Vanuatuan ranks.
  
  The topîc of the article is the comparison, so you need sources about the comparison, not sources about individual countries nor about the history of the French gendarmerie. This is not an editorial issue, this is a fundamental issue for an AfD. Fram (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find articles like this useful but can't comment on their notability. Fwiw, I was led here from a Village Pump thread on the same topic that seems relevant. -- Avocado (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sit-ups (punishment)

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

Reason Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC) This entire article contains numerous unreferenced claims about the various variants of sit-ups, lacking any reliable sources to support them. The information appears to have been added by some bunch of students, incorporating misleading and nonsensical details that violate Wikipedia’s content policies. Furthermore, most of the information on this topic is derived from news sources and it is not required to make a seperate article for this topic in wikipedia if further research isn't made.[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's worse, the sourcing only beginning at the bottom of the article or the fact that no-one in 11 years has consulted any sort of decent source to discover that uthak baithak is in fact squatting, as is murga (which we currently have at stress position). Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the referenced content into the "Sit-up" article and delete the article and the large amount of unreferenced content. A independent article about sit-ups as a punishment does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedialuva (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkari Expedition 1916

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

The article relies on a single primary source, and its tone is unbalanced. For a long time, no additional sources were added, and it is difficult to find references for such a minor battle. Although the Assyrians retreated during this battle, it is still considered a victory because the source comes from a book written by one of the Assyrian leaders who participated in the war. However, the part stating that the Assyrians retreated has been removed. Here is the old version of the article [1]. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The single source is not a primary source - this indicates a misunderstanding of what a primary source is. Moreover, it is irrelevant at AfD whether an article relies on primary sources (completely acceptable), uses only a single source (not preferred, but okay), is non-neutral or incomplete (because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) - this indicates a misunderstanding of this process. That being the case, the impulse is to toss this nomination without further ado. A google search turns up multiple references. [43] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye7 note that GNG does generally require multiple secondary sources: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Also note WP:OR: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The book describes itself as "first-hand", which suggests that it's a primary source (though I have not looked at the source itself so this could be misleading). But none of this matters because it looks like it's self-published. The article should be kept if those references you've added give significant coverage, but it's hard to tell from WP:GOOGLEHITS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The mistake that many newbies make is assuming that the sources required by GNG to establish notability must be those used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Possibly to the Assyrian volunteers or the Persian campaign (World War I). There is a lot of information about the genocide and the overall fighting in that region of the world, but I am not finding anything referring to this as an Expedition. Moritoriko (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Buddha College of Engineering

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

Article seems to be entirely promotional. Fails WP:PROMO. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nepal Premier League

AfDs for this article:

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

Just WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTINHERITED coverage; fails WP:SIGCOV. Vestrian24Bio 04:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 04:21, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment: When making a 2nd nomination less than 4 months after the previous closed, you are obliged to comment on the previous discussion and why it should be revisited. Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte
1. Previous AfD was a no consensus close.
2. It was closed because the tournament was to be inaugurated and it was unclear if it would get WP:SIGCOV.
3. But, now it concluded about 3 months ago and it did not attain WP:SIGCOV.
Vestrian24Bio 07:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD was a procedural close because the tournament had not yet happened, but was happening soon. Now it has happened, we can assess the notability appropriately. The last AfD closure even says that a new AfD after the event has happened is fine. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not enough significant sustained coverage of the event to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An event which has never occurred before cannot be labelled routine. Passes the GNG, multiple in depth reliable sources analysing its implact: Nepal Premier League becomes a watershed for Nepali cricket Kathmandu Post 23 December 2004, Beyond Nepal Premier League: The Role of Cricket in Revitalizing Nepali Economy Nepal Economic Forum 9 December 2024, First edition of NPL takes Nepali cricket a few notches up, internationally República 21 December 2024. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An event which has never occurred before cannot be labelled routine This is simply untrue- please read WP:ROUTINE. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have. A national level sporting competition which has never occurred before cannot be called routine. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the sustained WP:Significant coverage that is required to meet WP:GNG? I see a lot of routine coverage and regurgitated press releases (which most of your links above are). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we start assuming having this much coverage is not enough then we should start nominating every full member domestic tournament article or should not create any articles of domestic tournament since they also have not enough coverage and some countries article are created with just routine coverage think of that too.Godknowme1 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Godknowme1: Nepal isn't a full member nation. Vestrian24Bio 07:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never told Nepal is full member nation, my point is every full member country domestic tournament lacks significant coverage yet we create separate articles need to rethink what is reliable and what is routine.Godknowme1 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do a news search for 2024 NPL and 2024 IPL and see the difference... Vestrian24Bio 05:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we start comparing others leagues with IPL no need for Afds just delete it, my point was even domestics cricket tournament of full members lacks coverage yet we make article and there is no problem having this much coverage should be sufficient.Godknowme1 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is WP:ALLORNOTHING. Vestrian24Bio 02:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE if you think other season articles aren't notable, nominate them for deletion. That isn't a valid reason to keep this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the relising comment and as there's an assertion about the three sources I supplied I wish to comment. All three contain *analysis* of the impact of the 2024 tournament satisfying WP:NEVENT and the WP:GNG. Furthermore, this is more than apporpriate as an WP:OKFORK. Certiainly if the 2024 comp was an abject failure or was cancelled, I could understand grounds for not having a separate article, but there's clearly more than adequate material for this to be a stand alone article. If we were talking about Dutch cricket, I might have a different view (depending on the sources!) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Nepal Premier League and delete. No evidence that the competition merits season by season articles. Wikipedia is not a sports/cricket almanac, or a mirror of external cricket databases. Not a useful redirect or search term so can be deleted after merge of encyclopedic content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last round. Otherwise this will probably be closed as no consensus, once again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may I just point out that in Nepal, the year is now 2081. So it would perhaps be better to search for NPL 2081 rather than 2024? Now this is clearly a major event in Nepal, see press coverage such as [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], etc.. --Soman (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Routine sports coverage and recycled press releases don't make anything notable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
... coverage of sports events tends to be sports coverage? --Soman (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Routine". Primary sources such as these simply don't provide evidence of notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please illustrate how this would be "recycled press releases". From my reading, they are press articles and as such independent secondary sources. --Soman (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Match reports with basic information like these and an explanation of tournament schedule are not significant coverage, all routine coverage that you would expect for any event. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : Have enough coverage (In English and regional) to pass WP:GNG links already provided above.Godknowme1 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please identify the independent secondary reliable sources covering the season in depth? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the links provided above are actually WP:ROUTINE coverage... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are not allowed to vote twice, so am striking second vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awwad Al-Sharafat

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

Declined prod based on medal in West Asian Championships. However that competition is not a "major senior-level international competition". Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Jordan. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTBASIC: Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition. 2018 West Asian Athletics Championships is a major level competition. Also has its own Wikipedia page. 109.36.238.74 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Sharma

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

Lacks Notability. Not a single independent significant Coverage. Most of the articles are repetition of news about his appointment. And rest are the passing mentions. There are some Sources which talk about awards , but none of these awards seem to be notable. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Blood Transfusion Service

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

Lacks Notability. Hardly have source to make an independent article. Contents of this article is being copied from Nepal Red Cross Society article. This article is likely to be a duplicate one written with different title[[49]] which i had nominated for deletion earlier. Now i came across another similar article , so had to come here. Plz also have a look on another nomination Nepal Red Cross Society Central Blood Transfusion Service. Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Hatla

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

Another article about an athlete that does not pass Notability guidelines. No sources beyond profiles with his name. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 12:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was any effort put in to this? Clearly notable with in-depth stories such as this, this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Qadir Khan

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

All of the sources in this article are about a person who is not the article subject. The sources are all about Pandit Jasraj and the subject is claimed to be his guru based on this. That isn’t the quality of sourcing we need for a stand alone bio. The bio of Jasraj doesn’t mention this subject, so the claim he was his guru looks a bit shaky. Mccapra (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Mccapra (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You raise important points about the sourcing quality. There are few published resources in English where the claim that Pandit Jasraj is Ghulam Qadir Khan's disciple are available. However, among his own disciple community, this is well-known and accepted. Pandit Jasraj speaks about him in this Hindi-language video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4VMwiG4264). The challenge here is that Ghulam Qadir Khan is an important reference for two of the subcontinent's popular musicians, Pankaj Udhas and Pandit Jasraj. The sourcing quality of the page is certainly not up to the standards of the relevance of this individual.

I recommend that the deletion nomination should be removed but the stub for notability guidelines should remain. Others in the community (such as myself) will work to bring this page to the sourcing quality it demands.

Given that this page relies on sourcing outside of the English language, it will take time to collect citations in Hindi and Gujarati, where this figure is more prevalent. This page should remain on the English language Wikipedia because of the wide use of English on this Indian subcontinent, where this page is relevant. Karanderao (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sources in Hindi and Gujurati will be very welcome. Mccapra (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Sollak

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

Unnotable Austrian conductor. I was unable to find any reliable sources about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 07:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no time to look deeper into this until next week. He seems to have conducted at the Vienna State Opera several times, and to have made several recordings: in that case he is certainly notable. Please notify project Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't delve into this more for at least a couple more days, but within three minutes I found these reliable sources: [50], [51], [52], [53]. The Tribune source is more than wp:sigcov. So if the argument for deletion is that no reliable sources can be found, it's a pretty weak argument. Zingarese talk · contribs (please mention me on reply; thanks!) 22:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naari

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

Un-sourced article filled with promotional content. No indication of company's notability and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE. Unable to find significant coverage in WP:BEFORE. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, India, and Karnataka. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Red Cross Society Central Blood Transfusion Service

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

Article lacks notability. Beside this, the information provided here is almost a copy paste from the article Nepal Red Cross Society . Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D-Lightsys

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

Does not appear to be any real information about the company beyond being owned by Radiall. Beyond that not seeing any notability. GamerPro64 05:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and France. GamerPro64 05:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arti Mehra

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

Despite her extensive political history, I don't really think she is notable under the Wikipedia guidelines. She hasn't been covered by many news sources, even Delhi local news sources, she is overshadowed by her bigger politician peers, the last coverage was over 10 years ago by reliable sources, and theres not anything extraordinary she did. DotesConks (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and India. DotesConks (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing much of anything sourcing-wise (string: ["arti mehra" politician]), and the same applies to the sources (Reference 2 is 404-compliant with a nonfunctional archive; the other two are passing mentions). Just being elected in a local mayoral election isn't enough. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DotesConks,

Thank you for your feedback. While I understand your point about the extent of media coverage, I believe that Arti Mehra's political career and contributions to Delhi's development make her notable under Wikipedia's guidelines.

1.⁠ ⁠*Political Roles and Achievements*: Arti Mehra served as the Mayor of Delhi for two consecutive terms, a position that requires significant leadership and involvement in governance. She was involved in several important initiatives, including infrastructure development (flyovers, hospitals, and multi-level parking), health reforms, women's empowerment projects, and urban development. These roles show her impact on local governance and urban development, which is significant in her political sphere.

2.⁠ ⁠*International Recognition*: Mehra represented India on global platforms, including speaking at the 62nd United Nations General Assembly and attending international conferences on climate change and women's empowerment. This further establishes her as a notable figure, especially within the context of global politics.

3.⁠ ⁠*References and Media Coverage: Although the news coverage might not be frequent, there are reliable sources like the *Deccan Chronicle and others that have acknowledged her work, including her participation in significant global events. Her contributions, particularly in governance and women's empowerment, have been discussed in reputable outlets. Her role in international relations and her representation of India at high-level events should be taken into account when evaluating her notability.

4.⁠ ⁠*Historical and Political Context*: While she may not have been continuously in the media spotlight, her position as a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and her involvement in Delhi’s political landscape over several years show a long-standing commitment to public service. It is important to consider her overall career impact rather than just recent news coverage.

I would also like to politely mention that there are many people whose contributions are a lot to the society but they don’t have as much media coverage currently. All their articles should be deleted as per your logic.

I believe her political influence, both locally and internationally, qualifies her for inclusion under Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for politicians. However, I appreciate your thoughts on this and am open to further discussion if needed.

Best regards, King changer (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...All of which mean absolutely nothing without any sort of sources to back up your obviously AI-generated message. Sources are a hard requirement for any content concerning a living person; this is not negotiable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 05:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of Wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm always suspect of a WP:Bio subject §where the inclusion of a single academic course is part of the article. CLearly fails WP:GNG Variety312 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DRASTIC

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Drastic Team

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

A previous discussion had resulted in a Merge, this has now been challenged. Over a year ago.

It is a small group that seems to have no independent notability outside of the lab leak theory (which this was merged with) and which has too little, information to really warrant its own page Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. This was the previous discussion. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This online activist group passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to focused, extensive, and sustained coverage in reliable sources such as CNET, The Hindu, and the recent Le Monde article I added to the page. This article details the group's activities and influence on the COVID-19 origin debate, especially its efforts to uncover key documents and promote awareness around the lab leak theory as plausible. DRASTIC's leaking of the DEFUSE proposal from a source in DARPA, significantly changed the tone and discourse around the lab leak theory, prompting responses from the US government, Chinese state media, and the WHO. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC) — 103.156.74.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Added previous AFD, which closed as keep, when it was under a different title. Skynxnex (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to COVID-19 lab leak theory Not every minor aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic warrants a standalone article. This grouped gained some media attention in 2021, but this was not WP:SUSTAINED. Standalone articles require more than just brief bursts of coverage spanning a few months. This group's activites are already discussed in the lab-leak article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The recent and prominent profile by Le Monde [54] show that coverage is indeed WP:SUSTAINED. 103.156.74.129 (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shibbolethink: @JPxG:, two users active in the recent merge discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] DRASTIC was instrumental in producing evidence for the lab leak, and is cited widely. Covid-19 was a disaster of such enormity that this group clearly needs to stay. As to not being very current, neither is the NAZI party, but nobody would suggest it is not notable! Tuntable (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of widespread coverage. This recent article in Le Monde, published five years after the group's founding, demonstrates its lasting notability:[55]. Thriley (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the topic area I'd like to get more input on this before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Coverage was not WP:SUSTAINED. They had a burst of coverage in 2021 and that was it. DRASTIC is mentioned 4 times in COVID-19 lab leak theory and I think that is sufficient to cover this topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Tayea

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 March 7. Sources were provided late in the previous AfD, so please focus your discussion on whether these sources are sufficient to meet notability guidelines. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Egypt. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Conducted a brief search and found no suitable sources. Not notable. Delectopierre (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources have been provided in previous AfD to show that he was an MP and therefore satisfies notability guidelines (WP:NPOL). Obi2canibe (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't reviewed all the sources because I'm having trouble translating them, but I would just point out that merely being an MP does not guarantee notability, just suggests it. Separately, all of the information in the article must still comply with the verifiability policy and come from reliable sources. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is at stake in an AfD is to judge the notability of the article subject. Here WP:NPOL is pretty straight-forward ("The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels"). Whatever requirements for clean-up the article should be dealt with in the article and its talk page, not in the AfD discussion. --Soman (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article claims that the subject is a MP by which it passes NPOL.User:Soman in the last AFD listed - Al-Ahrar article from 1986 which claimed that he was a MP and his photo was there.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if he's verifiably an MP, then he's notable per NPOL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone who speaks Arabic cite the source given in the article? WikiProject Unreferenced Articles is trying to clear out the backlog for May 2009, which is the source of a lot of the attention this article is getting, as it is currently the last one, so I would add it but I unfortunately am not fluent. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't think we should delete it, maybe we can get someone who speaks arabic to translate the sources? He does seem to fall under NPOV though. Easternsahara (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to repeat what @Turtlecrown: said at the previous AfD: the Arabic version of the page (ar:محمد طايع) from which this was translated (mirrored here), was deleted in 2010 due to lack of notability. No evidence of him found by searching for his name in Arabic except for this this memorial Facebook page. Kazamzam (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Kazamzam, after Turtlecrown's post, 7 different sources confirming Tayea's role in the Egyptian parliament were posted in the previous AfD. Thus that statement was factually incorrect. Take for example (as it is the easiest to access) this article. --Soman (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per user Delectopierre Variety312 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, to summarize the refs we have are:

Source	Quote	Comment
Al-Ahrar (1986)	The title reads "السوايسة مهربون وتجار مخدرات و النائب محمد طايع يطالب بتحويله للمحاكمه" ("Al-Sawaisa [this should probably be reworded, refers to people in power in Suez] are smugglers and drug dealers, and MP Mohammed Taie demands that they be brought to trial.")	Full text article, fully applicable as reference. Al-Ahram major newspaper in Egypt. Clearly identifies Tayea as a Member of Parliament. Tayea illustrated in a photo.
al-Muṣawwar (1984). p. 5	"... وفى المنيا : حصل الوفد على مقعدين هما مقعد فاروق طه في الدائرة الاولى وأحمد شمرول في الدائرة محمد على طايع . وفى الاسكندرية : فاز الوفد وفى الدائرة الثالثة فاز الوفد بمقعدين في الدائرة الاولى على حين فاز الحزب الوطنى بثمانية مقاعد وكان ..."	This is clearly a listing of winning candidates from the 1984 Egyptian parliamentary election. But the Google Book text mark-up seems to have an error, there appears to be a missing word that would identify the precise constituency of Tayea. Can't see the full sentence due to snippet view. Due to snippet view, I can't see the title of the article, exact date of original publishing nor the author. Al-Musawar wiki article.
Sabah al-Kheir (2000). p. 6	"وهناك فوزية طايع زوجة المهندس محمد طايع النائب الراحل منذ أسابيع التي تنوى دخول المعركة في الأربعين أيضا" ("... and there is Fawzia Taie, the wife of the engineer Mohamed Taie, the late deputy a few weeks ago, who intends to enter the battle on the fortieth day as well.")	Snippet view on Google Books, but full sentence readable. Ar.wiki has an article on Sabah al-Kheir. Clearly identifies that Mohammed Tayea had been a member of parliament, that he was an engineer, that he was dead as of 2000 and that his widow was a candidate in election.
[56]	"كبار السؤولين تتعلق بأوجد التعاون بين البلدين في مجالات النقل البري والبحري' والملاقات البرلمانيه . ويغادر وفد مجلس الشعب المعري عمان الى -العقية يوم الثلاثاه القادم عائنا الى نويبع ويضم الوقد البادة:, [...] ؛ محمد مرسي غربء محمود محيد داودء حافظ عبدء شيخدء وجييه الزلاياني..." ("Senior officials discussed cooperation between the two countries in the fields of land and maritime transportation and parliamentary meetings. The Egyptian People's Assembly delegation will leave Amman for Aqaba next Tuesday, heading to Nuweiba. The delegation includes: [...] Mohamed Morsi Gharbeh, Mahmoud Mohid Daoud, Hafez Abdel Shekhed, and Wagih Al-Zalayani. Mohammed Ali Tayea; ...") محمد علي طايع؛ "	1985 article in Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustour, mentioning Tayea as part of an Egyptian parliamentary delegation. Contrary to comment made in the previous AfD, an equivalent of a congressional staffer would not have been mentioned as a delegation member in Middle East context.
[57]	"...م تحدث محمد طايع ( حزب الوفد ) © لمحاميى القطاع العام والهيئات ما كانوا أسوة بما هى متيع" ("Mohamed Taie (Wafd Party) © spoke to the lawyers of the public sector and the bodies that they were not equal to what they are enjoying...")	Al-Akhbar article from 1985. The mark-up is horrible, but ties Tayea to the Wafd Party and seem to relate to parliamentary event.
قضية مجارى الاسكندرية : جريمة العصر القصة الكاملة لتلويث مدينة و تدمير معالمها السياحية و الحضارية و البيئية	"ه - المهندس / محمد علی محمد طايع عضو لجنة الاسكان وقامت اللجنة بزيارة ميدانية لمحافظة الاسكندرية في الفترة من ١ - ٤ مارس سنة ١٩٨٥ اجتمعت خلالها بالسيد محافظ الاسكندرية ورئيس المجلس الشعبى المحلى وبعض أعضائه ورئيس هيئة الصرف الصح"	A book, seemingly polemical, has a mention of Engineer Tayea being a member of the Housing Committee, participating in a fact-finding mission instituted by the People's Assembly. The fact-finding committee happened in March 1984, so before the May 1984 election.
مصطفى شردي من المهد إلى المجد	"مهندس محمد طايع - عضو مجلس الشعب السابق" ("Engineer Mohammad Tayea - former member of the People's Council [i.e. parliament of Egypt]")	A book, which mentions Tayea as former MP in passing (p. 188)

--Soman (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources have been provided that indicate the subject does pass WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here is his official page on the website of the Egyptian Parliament, confirming that he was an MP. Clear NPOL pass. Mccapra (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that's a different Mohammed Tayea, also a member of the Egyptian parliament. Arguably the article of the AfD should be moved to Mohammed Ali Tayea, to differentiate from this the other MP Mohammed Tayea Saad Nasrallah Eid. --Soman (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Gereidi

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

Entirely reliant on database sources, and these only supply his results at the Olympics and a birthyear. As such, there exists no sigcov in reliable sources, from what I can find. Jordano^5³ 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Jordano^5³ 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Nations Party of British Columbia

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

Article topic fails WP:ORG. The party is defunct and achieved insignificant results in the one election it fielded candidates in (0.21% of the popular vote, less than 7% in ridings it contested).

The article was previously PRODed in 2020 but deproded by Spinningspark with the explanation: "This is more than the usual joke/personal soapbox minor party. It needs a more thorough discussion before deleting, and some evidence of WP:BEFORE". I looked through Google (general web search), Google Books, Google Scholar, and my university databases (local to BC) for reliable sources and found no in-depth coverage. The only content about the party that has survived on the web is non-in-depth public records from the provincial government (i.e. date registered, deregistered, etc.).

I found this article by a local Indigenous publisher, but the coverage does not include a claim of notability. The coverage is quite routine and is a basic breakdown of the party's ambitions. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 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 03:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teagan Livingston

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

Although a colonel in the U.S. air force, the subject doesn't seem to be notable. Livingston has limited coverage by reliable sources. She is featured in an article from The Times of London on how her admission to a women's lineage organization led it into "a political storm for welcoming transgender women", but it seems the organization's admission policy of trans women more generally is the focus of the article, not Livingston as a trans woman herself. Not sure if this can be redirected to the relevant section Daughters of the American Revolution#Transgender women.

Other than that, there is an article on a voice training group for trans people at a Pennsylvania grad school with a couple quotes about her experience as a participant. This seems pretty trivial and not worth a mention. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mentioned at Teagan.
Delete I was going to say "what's the harm" but googling this person I don't see much mention at all, with the Wikipedia article featuring prominently above the two cited above, and nothing of note beyond them. Seems almost promotional. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, Sexuality and gender, and Pennsylvania. Bridget (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming that everything is true, this is a classic WP:BLP1E situation. The Daughters of the American Revolution is not the major organization it was 50 or 90 years ago. Trans people are breaking all sorts of barriers formerly closed to them, and God willing, shall continue. She's not even the first but one of the first. A redirect as referenced in the nomination is acceptable, but not my first choice. Bearian (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Feierabend

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

No sources found. Fails WP:GNG and only 20 revisions done since its creation. Gauravs 51 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (changed to Keep, see below): No results in either Swiss newspaper archive. I will search for German sources tomorrow, ~~but if I don't get around to it this should be read as a !vote to delete~~. Toadspike [Talk] 21:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After searching several newspaper archives, I finally found hits in the Schwäbische Zeitung [58]. Most of it is not sigcov, simply covering exhibitions of his work and by his art group Panta Rhei (likely notable) – this has four sentences about his work and his art, this has around a paragraph about his art, this has a sentence or two. I strongly suspect that their archive, which would have covered Feierabend when he was alive, will have more coverage, but it seems like I'd need their app to access it.

The search function of the Deutscher Zeitungsarchiv is very obtuse but it seems like they don't have anything on him – not a surprise, given that their coverage after ~1950 is limited. Toadspike [Talk] 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the German Wikipedia article, there's a biography of him titled "Die Stille ist laut genug: Der Maler Hermann Feierabend und seine Bilder" and have an article about one of his paintings being stolen [59] (paywalled). Searching that newspaper (Südkurier) for his name in quotes, I get over 39 results. At this point, I am certain that enough sourcing exists for an article, even if I cannot access it due to paywalls. We should keep this article. Toadspike [Talk] 18:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He 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. The article has no citations and I am not finding any RS to support the information presented in the article. The German Wikipedia article does not show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read anything I wrote above? Although he isn't world famous, "He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" is demonstrably false [60][61][62][63]and "or won significant critical attention" is also demonstrably false (there is a book written about him). While I admit that the sources I've linked don't cover all the info in the article, there are in fact many reliable sources that cover him. I also strongly disagree with "The German Wikipedia article does not show notability" – it cites a book and a news source, which is a lot by their standards. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read what you wrote and disagree with your assessment. Multiple items in Schwäbische Zeitung does not make an artist notable, just a member of a local group of artists who exhibit in the town hall every year. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my harsh language. I think the paywalled Südkurier articles and potential coverage in the Schwäbische archives, plus the book, are enough. You do not. This is reasonable and we may agree to disagree. Toadspike [Talk] 17:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sin City yarns

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

Unreferenced plot summary. Unlikely term to be searched for. I don't see the need to redirect this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wholly unsourced fandom filler; the only improvement I could see outside adding sources is a link to shaggy dog story in the lede, which describes the concept of 'spinning a yarn', but this is just a wordier version of Sin City#Sin City yarns itself, which would be a proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonable SPLIT of Sin_City#Sin_City_yarns. It just needs the sources. But as it has navigational interest, notability is probably not an issue. Worst-case scenario: merge it back into the main article(s). -Mushy Yank. 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with "navigational interest" (what do you even mean by that?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST states: " Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this one does not fulfill anything; it's just a long unreferenced plot summary of the books. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Mushy Yank. If the content is suitable to be kept in a larger article, I see no detriment to it being split out as a list. BD2412 T 03:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're just going to give a mulligan to the article having no references whatsoever? Nathannah • 📮 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And one that is nothing but a WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete Agree this fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. If the individual books/plots are notable, they can be given their own stubs/pages and this can be converted to an actual list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable; Wikipedia is not a catalogue of subsubplots. And of course it's purely a coincidence that the article is wholly uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog of subplots, and this is wholly unsourced. Even if someone were to find sources for development and reception, it would duplicate the content that belongs at Sin City. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Sin City page, which is missing plot summaries. Per MOS:NOVELPLOT, "An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary...There is usually no need to explicitly cite the novel as a reference". The page is too short to require splitting. That said, there's a lot of cruft that could be trimmed. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of countries with people on postage stamps

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

IMO fails WP:NLIST, not to say pointless: each and every country has people on their stamps. --Altenmann >talk 20:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless list with no source discussing the subject (and why would they; that would be like a "list of people with spinal cords"). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second AfD for this page. The first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps back in 2022. The page has been moved several times: from the creation of the page in 2002 until 2015 it was List of people on stamps, then it was List of people on postage stamps until 2020, then Lists of people on postage stamps until 2022, then Lists of countries with people on postage stamps. TompaDompa (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a source for the claim that all countries have people on their stamps? It sounds believable, but I would like to see a source just to make sure. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Beside the point. I a not writing an article and I made a reasonable guess. The one who wrote the list must find sources that discuss this particular list criterion. Otherwise next thing we get List of countries with birds on stamps, List of countries with buildings on stamps, List of countries with behemoths on stamps. In other words, my major claim was "fails WP:NLIST", and no, I do not have a reference for that either. --Altenmann >talk 01:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Just for the record, this page does not start with List but Lists, i.e. it's a List of lists. I'm actually inclined to keep it under a better name. Geschichte (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ouch. Anyway the process of getting rid of its members is underway: List of people on the postage stamps of Israel is gone, now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Sudan. --Altenmann >talk 10:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lists of people on postage stamps by country and keep. It's a valid organizational list for these countries' lists rather than a topic under this title. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep per Reywas92 as a navigational page/list of lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sciara Sciat

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

This is a duplicate of Battle and massacre at Shar al-Shatt Cinderella157 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- Seconding per nominator; Did my own due-diligence and it does indeed appear to be a duplicate. Just so we can move this along, can we justify a speedy deletion per WP:A10? There does appear to be some not insigificant content on here if someone would wish to grab anything from here and unofficially merge it into Battle and massacre at Shar al-Shatt MWFwiki (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agilulf2007, the article creator, would certainly be in the best position to do this. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a document comparison and, after some recent edits by Agilulf2007, I am not seeing any significant difference between them in respect to content in the newer article that does not exist in the older one. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Libya, Italy, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]