Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< April 25	April 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TPC River's Bend

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

Golf club that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. No in-depth sources found, only brief mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and Ohio. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is a perfectly good WP:ATD here, with a redirect to Tournament Players Club. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How were these missed in the WP:BEFORE search? Was Google News even searched? I found these here - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 6, 7, 8 KatoKungLee (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on suggested sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Tournament Players Club. We should avoid WP:LOTSOFSOURCES argument; as nom didn't say there were none, they noted a lack of in-depth coverage. Also, 4 of 8 links provided by KatoKungLee are only findable w/ a newspapers.com subscription.
There's a lot of routine/mention coverage to wade through but [7] (fairly in-depth review in RS), [8] (article not specifically about course but provides some good detail about it), [5] (also decent detail, discusses golf digest awards) are the three best sources imo. I oppose outright deletion, but don't feel very strongly about keep vs. redirect. Zzz plant (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per KatoKungLee. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calgary Rugby Union

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

These sporting groups do not appear to meet WP:GNG. I can find sources online that they exist, but not independent third party sources, nor significant coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for deletion:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing any evidence of passing WP:GNG and WP:AGF to the nominator's WP:BEFORE. (But before deletion, please cherish this special unsourced statement: Though stocking a proper bar and food service area. The Calgary Irish have been known for running out of beer. This is a reoccurring problem.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of eco-horror films. ✗plicit 14:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbinger (film)

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

Paid for promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of eco-horror films. I can't find enough sourcing to justify this having an article. It was made, it was screened, and it won an award at a minor film festival, but there's not enough to justify this passing NFILM. I can't find reviews in any place that Wikipedia would consider usable. I would normally just argue for a delete, but there's a consensus at WP:FILM that movies can be redirected to list pages even if they are non-notable, so arguing for a redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of eco-horror films. The subject is more appropriate to be included in the list rather than having a standalone article. In my opinion, it does not meet the notability required for an independent page. Mejor to redirect it to the corresponding list where it fits naturally. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of eco-horror films per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as keep for two reasons. The first is that editors have pointed out sourcing that suggests that this passes NFILM. The other and more major reason is that this is a sock for a user who, per the SPI, has a history of making AfDs with weak and/or non-existent rationales - as well as generally being disruptive. With these two things in mind, I'm going to close this. If any non-socks want to re-nominate, please take the supplied sourcing into consideration first as offhand this does suggest notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Dollar, The Price of Life

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

The article has no significant references and it says that he received the Goya Award, but I can't find the citation that validates that information. Iban14mxl (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Panamanian films: and add some of the mentions that can be found in GBooks (please search with the original title), including Latin American Documentary Film in the New Millennium (2016, Palgrave Macmillan US, p. 293. If the film is considered a NFIC meet, ~~not really fiercely opposed to K,~~ -Mushy Yank. 10:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC) ---> Keep per Somebodyidkfkdt. Thanks a lot.-Mushy Yank. 17:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: SIGCOV here, here and here is enough for GNG. This source claims that the film caused a controversy on its release, which would imply that there is SIGCOV in offline sources. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator was block as a sock. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Theater

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

Oh boy, here we go. So: this article violates WP:NOTPROMO, as most of the sources are puffy primary sources or online forums, or a primary source for the project itself. Next, this fails the notability guidelines for art and the general notability guideline, as a cursory search reveals no coverage in reliable secondary sources. This breaches WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED. There's an MIT paper (and some more stuff). about the concept of "Desktop Theater," but that is seperate. The sources are also quite biased, as one of the big ones is the homepage for this project. Some others include an online chat room called The Palace. Bad, biased sources. This article should absolutely be deleted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Theatre, Companies, Products, and United States of America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from doing a brief web search and have yet to find potential RS sources, found that citations #3,#5,#6 are already deadlinks which I have already marked. article may have potential as an article for its proposed innovations, but if no new RS can be filled in. Not opposed to draftify as an ATD.Villkomoses (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not finding any RS for this defunct project. Current sourcing do not show notability. See table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://themagdalenaproject.org/sites/default/files/OP6_HelenJamieson.pdf	The Open Page	The Open Page The Magdalena Project produced this annual journal from 1996 to 2008, in collaboration with Odin Teatret	~ briefly metions a project of Desktop Theatre	? Unknown
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/technology/techspecial/the-time-is-now-bust-up-the-box.html			Passing mention of Adriene Jenik. No mention of Desktop Theater	✘ No
https://ajenik.faculty.asu.edu/desktoptheater/desktoptheater_content/howto/files/h_fr_01.htm			dead link	✘ No
Christiane, Paul. Digital Art			listing of a book (offline) no page number	? Unknown
https://people.brunel.ac.uk/bst/3no1/Papers/Julia%20Glesner%20Internet%20Performances.htm			dead link	✘ No
https://ajenik.faculty.asu.edu/desktoptheater/desktoptheater_content/archive/files/a_fr_01.htm			dead link	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xaverian Primary School

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

This is an article about a primary school. Per the 2017 RfC, secondary schools aren't inherently notable; this is a primary school. Definitely no inherent notability. As for other things, this article fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. This is a completely unsourced article with no citations, tagged as such since 2013. This article also doesn't use an encyclopedic tone, and can be borderline puffery for a large portion of it. This article also isn't in any other languages. Per above, this article should be deleted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can not locate any significant coverage. GoldRomean (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, no reliable sources with significant coverage is also available through search. Not a single line is verifiable. Hence, fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:V, and WP:RS. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Johann III, Count of Sponheim-Starkenburg. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John IV, Count of Sponheim-Starkenburg

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

This is an article about a random german count. This fails the notabiltity guidelines for people, because Wikipedia is not genealogy and random post-medieval counts are not inherently notable. No claims to notability here, besides being a random German count. No sources cited, and has had this tag since 2017. WP:BEFORE, german wikipedia article is essentially a translation and yields no further information or claims to notability. Bad article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johann III, Count of Sponheim-Starkenburg, since that’s his father (who is notable), and Johann IV (aka John IV) is mentioned in that article. ApexParagon (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ApexParagon. Also John V, Count of Sponheim-Starkenburg, the end of the line. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johann III, Count of Sponheim-Starkenburg.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andares

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

shopping center without strong weight or reference Iban14mxl (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as a sock. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG non notable shopping centre.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hollow Knight. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Team Cherry (developer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Newish account has undone this redirect twice. Now it's an unnecessary glorified disambiguation page. There's is no standalone notability for the developer and the 2017 video game Hollow Knight is a more suitable redirect. Its sequel, Hollow Knight: Silksong, is still unreleased. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollow Knight. What I can find around Team Cherry is all related to them developing the game. Masem (t) 01:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (since Team Cherry already exists) and WP:SALT. They are not notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I've edited Team Cherry to link to the relevant articles. "and its sequel" might also work there imo. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the existing DAB page. I don't see how this would be useful as a redirect, and while it's true that they are primarily known as the developers of Hollow Knight, most current discourse is focused on Silksong, which makes choosing a single target difficult. Toadspike [Talk] 13:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. This has been created off and on for several years. Flibirigit (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hollow Knight as a plausible company name redirect, maybe to the Development section with slight additions of its basic information to count as a subtopic. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hollow Knight. as it does seem to make more logical sense. As the developers are known by the games they developed.Villkomoses (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hollow Knight but oppose SALTing: the article could be opened in the near future assuming Silksong gains them further fame and more publications directly cover the developer. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article basically had almost no content. If a notable draft is created in the future, it can be unsalted. But with how private Team Cherry is, any "opening up" is highly speculative. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollow Knight.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~Hollow Knight~~ Team Cherry, protect the page if the redirect gets removed again

Edit: Better to redirect it to the disambiguation page ApexParagon (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Come on, folks. We can't redirect this to Hollow Knight while we have a dab page at Team Cherry that points readers to another article. That's nonsense. -- asilvering (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Asilvering we cannot redirect to Hollow Knight given the Team Cherry mention. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “(developer)” prefix at the end signifies that it’s referring to the video game developer rather than the ice hockey team. I think a redirect to Hollow Knight would be appropriate in this instance ApexParagon (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, it's the developer. But note that at the dab page we are pointing readers to two different articles, if they're looking for info about that developer. It doesn't make any sense to have the dab give readers different info than this redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Better idea. Just redirect it to the disambiguation page Team Cherry ApexParagon (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hollow Knight. Since the two links on the disambiguation page refer to installments in the same franchise, the best practice would be to point this link to the introductory installment for that franchise. BD2412 T 19:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Martins

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV, subject is only even potentially notable in connection with a single event, the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood. Cited sources establishing notability are not WP:INDEPENDENT. They consist of: the subject's autobiography, two publications by the subject's employer (BYU), a Deseret News Church News article (an official mouthpiece of the LDS Church, which owns BYU), and an article in the Faith section of the LDS Church-owned Deseret News. Jbt89 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Hawaii. Jbt89 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Light years from a pass in WP:Prof. Notability will have to be found elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spinout (video game)

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

This is an article about a minorly successful Playstation 2 game. This article is completely unsourced. Found coverage at the time of publishing in the form of a page on game site IGN, and a Metacritic page. There's one review on said IGN page. Because of this, this page fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, (there really isn't any) and the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. tl;dr this article shouldn't exist. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Products, Technology, and United Kingdom. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1] Jeuxvideo for Spinout. Slightly more coverage under RealPlay PuzzleSphere: [2] Eurogamer, [3] GameSpot, [4] Videogamer.com. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[5] Eurogamer for Spinout as well. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is bizzare. From French Wikipedia I learned that this was released for Wii as Vertigo, and JV confirms it: [6]. Why the developer released the same game under three different names for three different systems is beyond me, but they appear to be the same game. This gives at least [7] Gamekult, and others here [8]. Enough for a keep in my book. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nom is not a familiar name in the VG deletion queue, so I'll pre-empt the question and note that all of the sources I explicitly identify in this comment thread are identified as consensus reliable per WP:VG/RS. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I can't see the sites you mentioned, but if they are just game reviews per WP:PRODUCTREV, it's not grounds for notability. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AnonymousScholar49 That guideline does not apply here, obviously? Notability for creative works is almost entirely based on reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per A412. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A412. Sources have been provided to fix the article's lack of necessary information and notability in general. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Bianchi

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

I came to this article due to a new editor altering the DoB, possibly a Coi editor. I noticed it was referenced to IMDb so I removed it (and the IMDb link). I then noticed the that the only other reference was IMDb. In 2009, a verification tag was added. Per WP:BEFORE I have searched Google, newspaper and books. The only mention I could find was in the footnotes of a book, nothing in the main text. I do not believe the subject meets WP:GNG. I think this is my first AfD nomination and I wasn't sure about what other categories, if any, should be included. Knitsey (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Knitsey (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage in a few wiki mirrors, but nothing otherwise. This article is unsourced, and I don't find any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unsourced article without easily found references, notability isn't inherited just because he worked on a notable show at one point. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews Nakahara

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

Doesn't meet NMMA or GNG. Nswix (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Brazil. Nswix (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Doesn't meet either guidelines. Lekkha Moun (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Lekkha. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:NMMA. He also doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Papaursa (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NMMA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Improvements to article quality and sourcing are always welcome regardless of notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names

AfDs for this article:

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

In the previous deletion discussions (dating back to 2004), there were comments that said this article should be kept as long as the problems are fixed, including some that said the "Other" section should be removed. It's now 2025, and there's still tons of unsourced entries and the "Other" section is still there, and it has a "multiple issues" tag with items dating to February 2022 and August 2017. This list is also fundamentally unencyclopedic, given that it provides no information other than that some people find the names unusual, and just because there are sources does not mean it should be included; see Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. All the promises have failed to be lived up to; time for it to go. It can always be recreated at any time once the problems are fixed. 123957a (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and Lists. 123957a (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. I don't think this is significant and what constitutes unusual is not really defined unless we're saying anything not recognized by IUPAC which is an incredible number of compounds. It's normal to give chemicals memorable or even "weird" names because systemic nomenclature for large molecules is only useful for computers.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions. Suggest we should start listing these at WP:PEREN after the 5th deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you actually agree with the previous discussions, but I'd like to remind everyone here to not vote "keep" solely because previous discussions ended in keep. Thanks. 123957a (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: While this isn't the worst list I've seen by any stretch, its criteria for inclusion are inherently subjective, culture-dependent, and frankly silly: "Some names derive legitimately from their chemical makeup, from the geographic region where they may be found, the plant or animal species from which they are isolated or the name of the discoverer"...how is that unusual? That's how newly-discovered species and minerals have been named for centuries. I can see this list having use as a fun trivia exercise to introduce people to chemistry, but that isn't what WP is for. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens, and the nominator could start cleaning up the article. Christian75 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's been tried. It hasn't worked. Also, most of the entries don't have a source and are just one Wikipedia editor's personal opinion of what is unusual, which is WP:OR. 123957a (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Christian75, sure, but according to wikipedia policy the burden is not on the nominator to improve an article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This just a childish collection of trivia. Virtually all chemical names are unusual in the sense that (mistakes apart) no two chemical compounds have the same name. Athel cb (talk) 09:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question Per WP:LISTCRITERIA, inclusion criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Might those in favour of keeping this list explain how this requirement is met here? TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment references from the 5th nomination: "There are several reliable and independent sources listing these as chemical molecules with silly names. See "Molecules With Silly Or Unusual Names," by Paul May, published by Imperial College Press, 2008, ISBN-13: 978-1848162075. See also "Storyville: Molecular scientists have a word for it." The Independent on Sunday, Feb 1, 2004 by David Randall. He also finds amusing "Curious chloride" and "Moronic acid" from the Bristol University list. In many cases, the names were selected to be amusing or whimsical. A ref specifically saying that "arsole" has an unfortunate silly name is [9] "Chemical Cock-ups: A Story of How Not to Name a Chemical Compound Created" BBC, 13th April 2006. Then they in turn cite the Bristol site. The Royal Society of Chemistry makes fun of the silly name of Moronic acid at [10] in their Autumn 2005 newsletter. Another reliable and independent source listing some of these as having silly names is [11] "The New Book of Lists: The Original Compendium of Curious Information"(2005) By David Wallechinsky, Amy Wallace, page 203. Any entries which are not citeable to a reliable source which says it is a silly or unusual name can be deleted by the normal editing process."" Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above by Christian75 is convincing. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the quote in the comment by Christian75. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stockhausenfan According to Wikipedia policy, the burden of improving an article are not on the nominator. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonymousScholar49 Did you mean to respond to me? I was referencing this. Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per prior discussions, anyone is free to delete the entries that are unsourced or only sourced to the paper announcing the discovery in cases where the paper makes no mention of intentional humor. Christian75's listing of significant coverage of this immature topic is sufficient to retain this highly flawed article. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is 7th time and there are great explanations particularly 6th one and in other previous afds too. Change what is irrelevant, unverifiable and unsourced but it meets WP:V with WP:N. Per above sources - over-nominating this article here is not a great choice when you can simply edit unverifiable parts and explain that in summary of talk page. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Discounting the IP comments as they are a) almost certainly the same person, and b) very likely the blocked COI editor themselves. asilvering (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Mourad

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. None of his memberships are to "highly selective and prestigious" associations. (He is a fellowship director in the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, but this is not covered in NACADEMIC#3, and the selectivity of this position is unclear.) h-index is 16 on Google Scholar. The only coverage in independent sources is him being quoted or interviewed. Created by a blocked COI editor. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and New York. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept. Many issues have been brought up. The first is with regards to the credibility of the AAFPRS. The American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery is noted to be the world's largest specialty association for facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons and represents more than 2,500 board-certified surgeons who specialize in surgery of the face, head, and neck.^[1] Its credibility is certainly noteworthy as it is recognized by the American Medical Association (AMA) as the national specialty society for facial plastic and reconstructive surgery.^[2] It is also a founding member of the American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. In addition, although not an ACGME fellowship, the AAFPRS sponsors accredited post-graduate fellowship programs in facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, which are listed in the San Francisco Match (SF Match) program for sub-specialty training.^[3]

Directing an AAFPRS fellowship program should be considered a significant and noteworthy academic and professional achievement. Fellowship directors oversee one-year surgical training programs that provide advanced education in aesthetic and reconstructive procedures of the face, head, and neck. Fellowship directors are typically board-certified otolaryngologists or plastic surgeons who have extensive surgical experience, hold academic appointments at medical institutions, and contribute to clinical research and education. ^[4]

Many fellowship directors publish extensively in peer-reviewed medical journals, hold leadership roles in national medical societies, and are invited speakers at international scientific meetings, reflecting their contributions to the advancement of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery.^[5] This individual in question's academic achievement are aligned with that of leaders in the field meeting their rigorous expectations and should meet the standards required for posting on Wikipedia.

A search of Wikipedia will reveal individuals like Monica Tadros, whose noteworthy achievements include an award from the AAFPRS. It should be noted that if an award from the society has been viewed as notable and noteworthy, then it would appear that being a Fellowship Director certainly would justify a noteworthy achievement.

Disqualifying this article will likely require a revision of multiple individual and society articles. It appears that the there was a COI however that account has been banned which is an appropriate response but does not discredit this article on the basis of its own merit.

References

^ "About AAFPRS". aafprs.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.
^ "American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery". abfprs.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.
^ "Facial Plastic Surgery Fellowships". sfmatch.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.
^ "Facial Plastic Surgery Fellowship Programs". aafprs.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.
^ Patel, Zara (2021). "Global Perspectives on Facial Plastic Surgery Education". Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. 23 (1): 5–8. doi:10.1089/fpsam.2021.0050.

98.0.236.3 (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC) — 98.0.236.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Under WP:GNG a subject is considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The individual seems to have been independently profiled in medical news outlets and featured in publications beyond simple interviews. It seems that he has been interviewed by New York City news outlets, and featured on podcasts which are considered primary source material.

WP:NACADEMIC has strict thresholds, an h-index of 16 in a specialized surgical field is significant when compared within the context of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery, and otolaryngology, which is a narrower subspecialty. This individual has authored numerous peer-reviewed publications and book chapters, and serves as a fellowship director at a nationally recognized training program. Leadership within the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) reflects a selective professional achievement. Dr. Mourad has organized national training programs and contributed to academic curriculum development, which reflects broader professional recognition. Please see Babak Azizzadeh and Andrew A. Jacono, as similar individuals with comparable credentials and leadership within the same organization. Objectively speaking, this individual appears to be notable with similar individuals having similar profiles.

With regards to COI, while the initial article creation may have involved a COI, this alone is not a reason for deletion according to Wikipedia policy. I believe Content should be judged based on the strength of independent sources and compliance with notability guidelines. 2603:7000:24F0:88E0:D46E:92BD:14F9:D76E

(talk) 22:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be kept. The article meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline and satisfies the standards of WP:Notability (people). There is significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, beyond trivial mentions. Dr. Mourad has been covered in independent reporting by the New York Daily News, which discussed his clinical leadership roles during major public health events.^[1]^[2] He is also referenced in official State of New York Public Health documents confirming his appointment as Division Chief in surgery.^[3] In addition, he was recognized by the MediSys Health Network for contributions to hospital administration and patient care.^[4]

Furthermore, Dr. Mourad is listed publicly as a Fellowship Director with the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS), a leadership role in a national medical education organization.^[5]^[6] There's no direct source about how competitive the Fellowship Director role is, but it's verifiable. The AAFPRS, while not an academic body like ACGME programs, appears to be nationally recognized for training facial plastic surgeons. Upon further research, it appears within the field of otolaryngology, most subspecialty fellowships — like otology, rhinology, pediatrics, and head and neck surgery — are not accredited by ACGME either. They're run by their specialty societies, just like the AAFPRS runs facial plastics training. Being a Fellowship Director is still a meaningful leadership and mentorship position in that system. Wikipedia has precedent in recognizing these individuals. This also speaks to the comment with regards to an h score of 16. In specialized clinical fields such as otolaryngology, dermatology, and surgical subspecialties, an h-index of 16 is considered very strong. Unlike fields with massive research ecosystems (such as theoretical physics or oncology), clinical academic output typically results in lower citation counts. In this context, an h-index of 16 reflects a sustained, significant scholarly contribution over time and would be regarded as notable within the specialty.

In terms of professional achievements, Dr. Mourad holds double board certification, is a Fellow of both the American College of Surgeons (FACS) and the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS), and has authored over 40 peer-reviewed publications. These satisfy WP:CREATIVE and WP:PROF criteria as well.

Given the strong coverage in independent sources, his recognized leadership roles, and his academic work, the article clearly meets Wikipedia's notability standards and should be kept. 2603:7000:24F0:88E0:D46E:92BD:14F9:D76E (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC) — 2603:7000:24F0:88E0:D46E:92BD:14F9:D76E (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Parnell, Wes (2020-11-29). "'What am I going to do at home?': After losing a leg in Queens shooting, amputee talks about road to recovery".
^ Parnell, Wesley (2020-11-22). "'Just chaos': NYC paramedics, doctors, hospital staff overwhelmed by surge of shooting victims in 2020".
^ "Agenda" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ Network, Medisys Health (2023-06-16). "Congratulations to the MediSys Health Network's CARE Award Recipients".
^ "Fellowship Programs".
^ "Dr. Moustafa Mourad on the BackTable ENT Podcast".

Delete: The nomination statement is highly compelling, and the multiple IP !votes are not, given their frequent invocation of WP:WHATABOUTX and misunderstanding of WP:NACADEMIC. An h-index of 16 in medicine for a senior faculty member is extremely low and not a sign of professional indluence. Division chief is not a top academic appointment per NACADEMIC 5/6 and "fellowship director" is not the equivalent of a fellowship that warrants an NACADEMIC 3 pass. The sources raised here do not show a WP:GNG pass as they are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, the subject's own writings, and/or non-independent sources. Plus the page creator was blocked for denying a clear conflict of interest. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West End Eurovision

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

This article is largely unsourced, with only 1 primary source included. These yearly events at one performance venue do not appear to meet WP:GNG as there is a lack of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. A quick Google search only returns casual mentions of the event taking place, largely from the charity it benefits, the promoter, and venue's calendar and website. Grk1011 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. Grk1011 (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Events, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete checking the single citation, doesn't seem to be an in depth coverage about the subject, tried a brief web search , so far no significant RS came up. If any can find one. please do ping me for a check in. otherwise it's a go for me.Villkomoses (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pallagi

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

The Phoenix New Times article linked is the only significant coverage I could find of Pallagi, including from his novels or other activity. That source alone does not raise Pallagi to meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arizona, and Virginia. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this person that I can find. Tried for book reviews, no dice there either. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched a lot and could not find independent reliable coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. The Phoenix New Times article helps, but one source alone is not enough for notability. It is better to delete according to the guidelines. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails [WP:GNG]. No Significant coverage to prove notability. Most of the references talk about primary sources.WikiMentor01 (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent coverage found for this page. Also fails the WP:GNG. Sethi752 (talk) 06:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made an attempt to find more sources for this guy and came up with nothing. I like to find sources for articles but I was unable to come up with anything here. If this person, or any other person lacks notability, they cannot remain as a page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Battle of Amritsar (1634). ✗plicit 14:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sangrana

AfDs for this article:

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

"The Great Gurus of the Sikhs: Guru Tegh Bahadur & Govind Singh" does not mention this battle at all. Hari Ram Gupta (1984) dedicates 7 lines to this battle[12]. Madra, Amandeep Singh; Singh, P. (2016) mentions in footnotes that the first conflict between Sikhs and Mughals was fought in 1628 and provides no further details[13]. Daljeet Singh, Kharak Singh (1997) does not mention this battle. Gandhi, Surjit Singh (1978) covers the Battle of Amritsar (1634) and not the Battle of Sangrama fought in 1628. This article is perhaps conflating the two because all other sources are covering the second battle which we already have an article on, from the reading of the sources it seems the incident at Sangrana in 1628 (I doubt there was even a battle in 1628) served as a background/provocation to the Battle of Amritsar (1634), therefore I think it can be covered over there. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Battle of Amritsar (1634). Evident event conflict and much a minor event to be a standalone article Hionsa (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Harbinger (comic book). asilvering (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbingers (Valiant Comics)

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

Fictional people that fail WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely unsourced, but found Langsdale, S., & Coody, E. R. (2020). Monstrous Women in Comics. University Press of Mississippi. https://books.google.com/books?id=PNXaDwAAQBAJ as the first hit in Scholar, suggesting there may be more out there. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Harbinger (comic book) on the sole grounds of not having enough content not either already in or appropriate to said article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Harbinger (comic book).

ApexParagon (talk) 03:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stankievech

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

The article does not establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. It does not cite significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most mentions are local newspapers and none are properly cited. Without clear independent sources demonstrating lasting notability, this article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Cagrantsas (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article actually only has one primary source about a 2007 video project, I suppose that sentence could be removed. Otherwise, the subject has been covered extensively by independent outlets such as CBC News, Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, etc. A simple search on Google and Newspapers.com shows that the subject passes WP:GNG with flying colours. I will see about adding more sources and expanding the article over the next day or two. MediaKyle (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator later altered their rationale, changing "primary sources" to "local newspapers". MediaKyle (talk) 18:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The one gallery exhibit in Oakville in the CBC article was at a minor art gallery (source 7), so that doesn't meet artist notability. No listing in Getty ULAN [14] and a lack of critical notice, TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only critical review I could find [15], still not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand this vote. I've been adding plenty of good sources that qualify as significant coverage, from independent outlets. Notability is easily established in my eyes. If you look him up and review the sources, you'll find his work has been displayed in many other galleries as well, I just haven't written that into the article yet. MediaKyle (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Artists have their work exhibited, that's not notable; one of the notability requirements for artists is to be the subject of a major gallery exhibit or their permanent collection; we'd look at the AGO, the McMichael, the MOMA, that sort of thing. This person hasn't had anything outside of a small independent gallery in Oakville. See here [16].Oaktree b (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NBASIC. The criterion for having had exhibitions in a major gallery is irrelevant here. The following is a list of secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage on the subject:
Border Crossing Magazine, 2013

The Ottawa Citizen, 2013

CBC News, 2024

Galleries West, 2013

War Art in Canada by Laura Branden

Calgary Herald, 2023

AGO Insider, 2023 - published by the Art Gallery of Ontario

Canadian Art, 2015

The Toronto Star, 2014

I'm quite sure there's more, too. I've only just begun digging into his career, and I've already found all of this. MediaKyle (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, I'm wondering if you might take a look at all the new sources that have been presented at the discussion. Netherzone (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Unfortunately, not enough valid secondary sourcing to prove notability, for now. It's WP:TOOSOON. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 22:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Since the start of this nomination I've uncovered seven interviews, exhibitions in many galleries, and a wealth of other sources that can be added to this article. I'm going to hold off for now, as I've already improved the article quite a bit without getting too deep into expanding the prose. If others do not feel this article meets notability right now for one reason or another, kindly allow it to be userfied into my userspace so that I can continue developing it. MediaKyle (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this internationally known artist clearly meets not only WP:BASIC, but WP:GNG, and also WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. In addition to the seven sources brought to the discussion by MediaKyle, the artist has work in the permanent collection of the Museum of Contemporary Art, Montreal [17], [18]; the Agnes Etherington Art Centre at Queen’s University [19][20], and the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal [21]. He has shown at The Courtauld, the National Gallery of Canada, Palais de Tokyo, Paris; HKW, Berlin; Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Denmark; National Gallery of Canada; has shown in the Venice Bienniale. He has lectured at dOCUMENTA (13) and the 8th Berlin Biennale, and his writing has been published by Verso, MIT, Sternberg Press, e-flux, and Princeton Architectural Press.[22],[23]. In addition to the reviews listed above, there's this in Art in America:[24]. For some reason my BEFORE search is showing lots and lots of significant coverage, not sure why that isn't showing up for others. Netherzone (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, he received the notable Sobey Art Award, Canada's pre-eminent and largest award for contemporary Canadian artists under 35.[25] Also as an author/academic his work has been cited over 100 times. @Cagrantsas, I'm just wondering why you were only able to find mentions in local newspapers and none are properly cited (or independent). Did you use Google or a different search engine? Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Visual arts, and Photography. Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changing my vote to keep after Netherzone's great work and answer, thank you for finding all that. I'm not sure how I overlooked all that information, it should be included in the article if not done already. Subject passes WP:GNG m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject passes WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Netherzone. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone. passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions. A section at the target article already exists; content can be merged from page history if desired. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack

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

Half of this new article duplicates the reactions section of 2025 Pahalgam attack, the other half consists of boilerplate condolence tweets that editors have consistently removed from 2025 Pahalgam attack as non-notable. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support; Transfer it as a subsection under 2025 Pahalgam attack RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i agree 49.36.235.126 (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the main article about the attack. I don't see quite enough for a stand-alone article on the reactions. Oaktree b (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support; most of the info given is already there in the original attack article and it does not need to be a standalone article. Pikchaku (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is meeting with WP:GNG and getting many views. As the events progresses the article is informing us with the Reactions from all over the world. Also this is edited by many editors and there is nothing to delete it. A number of countries send condolences and react to the event and this article created for the only reactions. 2025 Pahalgam attack article is getting many words so the this article needs to be stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the main 2025 Pahalgam attack page is only ~1800 words, and per readability guideline at the ~10,000 mark we should think about splitting up. The event was only a few days ago, having a separate article for reactions seems like an unnecessary content fork. Zzz plant (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack - unnecessary WP:CFORK and per WP:PAGEDECIDE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 Pahalgam attack as an unnecessary SPINOFF. Articles are too small to split. Notability is irrelevant to this question. gidonb (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not short and it is currently in editing and expanding time by time as the event progresses. Misopatam (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My merge recommendation is without prejudice against having a similar article in due time. Your contributions are highly appreciated! gidonb (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Reactions section of the 2025 Pahalgam attack. Making a whole article on just the reactions to this attack is unnecessary and undue EarthDude (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions: Concur with nominator, article is largely duplicative SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: It is part of the 2025 Pahalgam attack and it is redundant to keep a separate article for reactions. Better to merge it in the reactions section of that article.
Merge: but minus the WP:QUOTEFARM boilerplate international reactions.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This could be something similar to the International reactions to the Gaza war article, multiple demonstrations across the world have happened with international condemnation and reactions from non-state organizations, this should documented either here or on the main article. Xoocit (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion to keep article is great. Misopatam (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge we should not have "reactions to" an article on anything, unless it is sourced to secondary sources and not breaking news reports. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per PARAKANYAA and various others. Polygnotus (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:To 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per boilerplate and WP:ROUTINE. Keep if one leader is seen dancing over the tragedy. Borgenland (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack. Reactions do not warrant a separate page without reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I support merging it with 2025 Pahalgam attack. There is already a "Reactions" Section on that article and it is very common for articles to have reactions sections. It is not common for there to be an entire page dedicated to reactions. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack#Reactions, this page has some more information to put into the former. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack, no need for a separate page. Frank Ken (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2025 Pahalgam attack. Agreed that a separate article isn't necessary since these info can be placed under one page inside a subsection. Galaxybeing (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 Pahalgam attack.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Unnecessary content fork; parent page has relevant section, doesn't justify split. TheWikiholic (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantahun Hailemichael

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

Most of the current sourcing do not even mention this person, or are simple mentions. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your continuous work on improving Wikipedia and making sure Wikipedia provide correct and factual information for the readers. As far as the concern you provided, All sources validate all the information in this person page and the name can be written in different forms as middle name and last name is usually used interchangeably in Ethiopian culture thus why you might think the person isn't mentioned. The last name might be broken apart to 'Haile' and 'Michael' to be used as Middle name and Last name respectively or Hailemichael is written as H'Michael which is common in Ethiopia. So please reconsider your stance for deletion of page as every source is unbiased and factual. Thank you. Anteneh1990 (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many instances of fictitious referencing, uncited information, and nothing online to establish notability. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Vegantics (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Albania. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle FA

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

Contested redirect without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Albania – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eagle FA is a professional football club that competes in Albania's third division as of the 2024–25 season. Club name is listed in the Albanian Football Federation website https://fshf.org/competition/kategoria-e-trete Kj1595 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what's at issue, but WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Svartner, where the club's name may be added. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to suitable target as discussed above since this article fails notability.
Redirect to List of football clubs in Albania.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of football clubs in Albania. As it is not WP:N and is WP:TOOSOON. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. For the record, WP:BLAR is a perfectly normal practice, and there's nothing wrong with doing so, particularly if the article in question has already been tagged for notability. asilvering (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Kunhuang

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

Contested redirect (as an ATD) without improvement, not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG, nor to satisfy WP:VERIFY, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they do not appear to meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Taiwan. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Li, Cheng-chi 李承機; Li, Yu-lin 李育霖, eds. (2015). 「帝國」在臺灣殖民地臺灣的時空, 知識與情感 ["Empire" in Taiwan: The Space-Time, Knowledge, and Emotions of Colonial Taiwan] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-986-350-120-6. Retrieved 2025-04-26 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "綜上所述，吳坤煌透過詩歌及戲劇活動聯繫臺灣與國際左翼運動，這些活動中牽涉大量的文化翻譯行為。誠如王惠珍有關吳坤煌與金斗鎔跨國文藝運動之比較分析，吳坤煌立基於臺灣觀點，細心考量了發表媒體的性質及中、日讀者的差異，顯示清晰的殖民地作家的戰略性。他與中國流亡作家雷石榆、朝鮮旅日作家金斗鎔的角色極其類似，三人皆為東亞左翼作家在日本的重要窗口。吳坤煌的左翼文藝活動具有以下意義：第一，左翼文化走廊的形成，是一群「不轉向者」在左翼運動寒冬共同奮戰的成果。吳坤煌亦是「轉向」風潮的抵抗者之一；第二，以國際都市東京為舞臺的「不轉向者」，其存續條件、戰鬥策略和支持動力，除了日本左翼文化人之外，亦仰賴跨民族/跨國左翼分子彼此間的交流與結盟；第三，吳坤煌只是左翼走廊中的眾多活動者之一，但是他的聯繫工作卻使得因政治運動式微而低迷的臺灣文壇與東亞左翼文化運動的依存體系取得聯繫，該體系也藉此獲得來自臺灣的帝國主義批判資源。"
  From Google Translate: "In summary, Wu Kunhuang connected Taiwan with the international left-wing movement through poetry and drama activities, which involved a large amount of cultural translation. As Wang Huizhen's comparative analysis of Wu Kunhuang and Jin Dourong's transnational literary movements shows, Wu Kunhuang, based on the Taiwanese perspective, carefully considered the nature of the publishing media and the differences between Chinese and Japanese readers, showing a clear strategic nature of a colonial writer. His role is extremely similar to that of Chinese exiled writer Lei Shiyu and North Korean writer living in Japan Kim Doo-yong. All three are important windows for East Asian left-wing writers in Japan. Wu Kunhuang's left-wing literary and artistic activities have the following significance: First, the formation of the left-wing cultural corridor is the result of a group of "non-turners" fighting together in the cold winter of the left-wing movement. Wu Kunhuang was also one of the people who resisted the "turn" trend; secondly, the survival conditions, combat strategies and support motivation of the "non-turners" based in the international city of Tokyo, in addition to Japanese left-wing cultural figures, also relied on exchanges and alliances between cross-ethnic/transnational leftists; thirdly, Wu Kunhuang was only one of many activists in the left-wing corridor, but his networking work enabled the Taiwanese literary world, which was depressed by the decline of political movements, to connect with the dependent system of the East Asian left-wing cultural movement, which also obtained imperialist critical resources from Taiwan."
2. Wang, Hui-chen 王惠珍 (2020). 譯者再現台灣作家在東亞跨語越境的翻譯實踐 [Translator Re-appears: Taiwanese Writers Translational Practices in East Asia's Translingual Border-Crossings] (in Chinese). Taipei: Linking Publishing. ISBN 978-957-08-5620-0. Retrieved 2025-04-26 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1930年代台灣日語作家中與日本左翼文化團體關係最為密切者，當屬楊達（1906-1985）與吳坤煌（1909-1989）兩人。楊逵因小說〈送報伕〉一作榮獲《文學評論》的徵文獎進入日本中央文壇，但吳坤煌在日本文壇卻未曾得過任何文學獎項，作品以詩和評論為主，產量不多。1939年便前往中國謀職，未直接參與台灣戰爭期的文學活動。因此，在台灣新文學史上並未受到特別的關注。直至下村作次郎著手研究《福爾摩沙》青年們之後，利用挖掘的一手文獻史料，釐清了吳坤煌與朝鮮左翼知識分子金斗鎔、舞蹈家崔承喜（1911-1969）的交友關係和他在日本的中、台、鮮文化交流圈內所扮演的角色後，才讓我們對吳坤煌在日的文化活動有較完整的認識。"
  From Google Translate: "Among the Japanese writers in Taiwan in the 1930s, those who had the closest ties with Japan's left-wing cultural groups were Yang Da (1906-1985) and Wu Kunhuang (1909-1989). Yang Kui won the essay award from Literary Review for his novel "The Newspaper Delivery Boy" and entered the central literary world of Japan, but Wu Kunhuang has never won any literary awards in the Japanese literary world. His works are mainly poetry and criticism, and his output is not large. He went to China to seek employment in 1939 and did not directly participate in literary activities during the war in Taiwan. Therefore, it has not received special attention in the history of Taiwan's modern literature. It was not until Shimomura Sakujiro began to study the "Formosa Youths" and used the first-hand documentary materials he excavated to clarify Wu Kunhuang's friendship with the Korean left-wing intellectual Kim Doo-yong and the dancer Choi Seung-hui (1911-1969) and the role he played in the Chinese, Taiwanese and Korean cultural exchange circles in Japan that we had a more complete understanding of Wu Kunhuang's cultural activities in Japan."
3. Wu, Pei-chen 吳佩珍 (2022). 福爾摩沙與扶桑的邂逅日治時期台日文學與戲劇流變 [The Encounter of Formosa and Fusang: Literary and Theatrical Transformations between Taiwan and Japan during the Japanese Colonial Period] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press. p. 150. ISBN 978-986-350-576-1. Retrieved 2025-04-26 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "中國的田漢（1898-1979）與台灣的吳坤煌（1909-1989），從二人今日留下的戲劇創作與評論，除了可知他們在東京如何透過戲劇受到左翼文藝思潮的洗禮，也可看出二人在東京交疊的軌跡。吳坤煌不僅參與田漢的戲劇演出，也曾發表田漢戲曲作品的劇評。... 有關吳坤煌在日戲劇活動的先行研究，首先有日本學者下村作次郎針對吳坤煌的東京時代爬梳其與朝鮮演劇家金斗鎔，以及劇作家秋田雨雀之間交流的關係。該文透過資料仔細比對追蹤，確認北村敏夫便是吳坤煌的筆名。柳書琴對於吳坤煌於東京與日本左"
  From Google Translate: "From the drama creations and reviews left behind by China's Tian Han (1898-1979) and Taiwan's Wu Kunhuang (1909-1989), we can not only see how they were influenced by left-wing literary and artistic trends through drama in Tokyo, but also see the overlapping trajectories of the two in Tokyo. Wu Kunhuang not only participated in Tian Han's drama performances, but also published reviews of Tian Han's opera works. ... The first research on Wu Kunhuang's theatrical activities in Japan was conducted by Japanese scholar Sakujiro Shimomura, who explored Wu Kunhuang's exchanges with the Korean playwright Kim Doo-yong and the playwright Akita Ujaku during his Tokyo period. Through careful comparison and tracking of the data, this article confirmed that Kitamura Toshio is the pen name of Wu Kunhuang. Liu Shuqin's comments on Wu Kunhuang's stay in Tokyo and the Japanese left"
4. Liu, Shu-chin 柳書琴 (2019). 日治時期台灣現代文學辭典 [Dictionary of Modern Taiwanese Literature during the Japanese Colonial Period] (in Chinese). Taipei: Linking Publishing. pp. 157–159. ISBN 978-957-085-255-4. Retrieved 2025-04-26 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "吳坤煌（1909-1989）詩人、評論家、演劇工作者、教師、社會運動者等。筆名梧葉生、北村敏夫、譽烔煌生。台灣南投人。1923年考取台中師範學校，1929年因學運餘波遭退學前往東京，輾轉就讀日本齒科專校、日本神學校、日本大學、明治大學等校。1932年8月與王白淵、林兌等人因籌組隸屬日本普羅列塔利亞文化聯盟（KOPF ）之「東京台灣人文化同好會（）」被取締，學業中斷。此後直到1938年3、4月間返台前，旅居東京，在轉向風潮中堅持左翼文化運動。1933年與張文環、巫永福等旅日學生組織台灣藝術研究會，發行《毛》，主編第一期，為台灣第一個日文純文學雜誌。"
  From Google Translate: "Wu Kunhuang (1909-1989) was a poet, critic, dramatist, teacher, social activist, etc. His pen names are Wu Yesheng, Kitamura Toshio, and Yu Yonghuangsheng. From Nantou, Taiwan. In 1923, he was admitted to Taichung Normal School. In 1929, he was expelled from school due to the aftermath of the student movement and went to Tokyo, where he studied at Japan Dental College, Japan Theological Seminary, Nihon University, Meiji University and other schools. In August 1932, he and Wang Baiyuan, Lin Dui and others organized the Tokyo Taiwanese Cultural Association () under the Japanese Proletarian Cultural Federation (KOPF), but the organization was banned and his studies were interrupted. From then on until he returned to Taiwan in March or April 1938, he lived in Tokyo and persisted in the left-wing cultural movement amid the trend of shifting trends. In 1933, he organized the Taiwan Art Research Society with Zhang Wenhuan, Wu Yongfu and other students studying in Japan, and published "Mao". He edited the first issue, which was the first Japanese pure literature magazine in Taiwan."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wu Kunhuang (traditional Chinese: 吳坤煌; simplified Chinese: 吴坤煌) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Hanyangprofessor2 (talk · contribs), who contested the redirect. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard Thanks. The nom is not being very nice, "forgetting" to ping me and engaging in stealth deletion of content without discussion by boldly redirecting them. I hope they'll follow proper procedures in the future. As for the article in question - keep, of course, since the topic meets GNG. Wikipedia:AFDNOTCLEANUP _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 05:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to System time#Retrieving system time.. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date (Unix command)

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate colleciton of information, not a guide, and not a man page. There's no evidence (including what I could find from WP:BEFORE) that this command has been covered in reliable, independent sources – except for 'Linux for beginners'-style books that tutorialize its usage but offer no encyclopedic context. I know that a lot of these kinds of articles exist like env, but that's a notoriously bad argument for keeping or deleting an article. They entirely contravene long-established Wikipedia policy to make something that exists between a man page and a GeeksForGeeks page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to System time#Retrieving system time, as is the case with Date (command). DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Summarising what I wrote on the talk page when the article appeared in the new pages feed a month ago,

When I first saw this article it reminded me of the Wikipedia Manual of Style which says: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook" (WP:NOTHOW). So I tried to find information elsewhere about date (unix command) to see where the idea came from, who wrote the code, how has it developed over time etc etc but I didn’t find anything. There are articles for echo (command), dirname and pwd, amongst others. They are less about teaching readers the syntax, and more about explaining the context, so I can see why they are there. If this article stays, then it needs far more background information to turn it into an encyclopedia article.

I'm very sceptical that more background information will come to light, hence my !vote to delete. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of POSIX commands or System time#Retrieving system time. I originally expressed my notability concerns here on the article creator's talk page, and I agree with the WP:NOTGUIDE concerns expressed above. Zeibgeist (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am opting not to relist this discussion because it was relatively well-participated in, and there is no reason to believe that further discussion will yield a clearer consensus. I would suggest revisiting in a few months, by which time the subject will be even more remarkably long-lived, or dead with a definitive status as to whether she was ever the oldest person in the world. BD2412 T 19:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Rose Tessier

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

This is an article about a supercentenarian, the oldest living French person on earth. This might be controversial, but I think this article violates WP:OLDAGE; just because something or someone is old does not make them notable. Looking at this article, there are no claims to notability besides the fact that she is really old. Yes, there is coverage in WP:RS, but it is not sustained coverage, and it barely clears WP:SIGCOV. What do we think? I don't think that people should have wikipedia articles purely because they happen to be very old. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OLDAGE says that if there are reliable sources covering the topic then it might merit an article perhaps a source analysis is in order (i would do it but im not very confident about the accurary i would have in determing the sources) if the sources arent good then i will vote delete but i cant just vote delete based on it isnt notable because i think it isnt Scooby453w (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 26 April

2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep per the statement "the sources are good and reliable but I don't think it's notable" and the guideline (and i may be wrong) says "being old isn't inherently notable unless there are reliable sources that have SIGCOV" so I feel like barring a source analysis that discredits the sources I have to vote to keep though I might change my mind if someone has a more convincing argumentScooby453w (talk)

Sure, but the subject barely clears WP:SIGCOV and does not meet WP:SUSTAINED, as there is not sustained coverage; stores from a few years ago when she became the oldest person in France. The sources listed in the article are French genealogy/gerontology reviews and a French newspaper, Actu, which seems to be a French tabloid.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thats not entirely true https://actu.fr/pays-de-la-loire/les-sables-d-olonne_85194/une-chasse-aux-oeufs-avec-marie-rose-105-ans_9393580.html https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/les-sables-dolonne-85100/les-sables-d-olonne-la-doyenne-de-la-ville-marie-rose-tessier-souffle-ses-109-bougies-6361771 https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/laval-53000/la-doyenne-des-pays-de-la-loire-a-110-ans-et-est-vendeenne-7132965 the oldest source dates back 10 years granted im not an expert in french sources so i dont know how reliable they are but it shows she's had coverage for atleast 10 years Scooby453w (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; for French sources I know that Le Monde is the newspaper of record and AFP is the wire service. Actu.fr doesn't look super reliable, wonder if any French wikipedians will pop in AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope so then we could find out how reliable these are Scooby453w (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like actu.fr may be a reliable source went on French Google and it passes NewsGuard reliability standards. (Don't know much about how reliable Newsguard is.) Not sure about Ouest. Even still, I think this article would still violate WP:ROUTINE. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that could be true for most of the sources but i dont think anyone planned for her to become the oldest living french person im still on the fence with whether or not to keep Scooby453w (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interpreting WP:ROUTINE as like the small updates at the end of news broadcasts like it says in the policy. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: apparently Newsguard lists MailOnline as a reliable source, casting doubt upon the actu rating. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good to know although I admit I'm confused as to wether this means it's reliable or not Scooby453w (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MailOnline was listed as a garbage source by Wikipedia in 2019; the fact that newguard thinks that it is a reliable source is a red flag imao AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - "Just because it's old, that doesn't mean it's notable" - but she's not just any old person, she's the oldest French woman & the fourth oldest person in the world.Blackballnz (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make her notable. You can't be notable simply for being old; and even if we consider her notable enough, she doesn't pass WP:STANDALONE; why should she have her own page? There's nothing notable besides old age. If we consider the oldest person in France notable for simply being the oldest person in France, then we go down a rabbit hole of "well maybe there should be an article for the oldest people in every country? Every state and province? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think You are misreading the old age essay it says being old doesnt make you AUTOMATICALLY notable unless there are reliable sources whicu youve alreayd admitted you think this page has i agree that being old doesnt make you automatically notable but i cant vote to delete when you admit you think the page has reliable sources in your ratoniale Scooby453w (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just WP:RS, and the reliability of the sources is questionable at the moment. Second, it can't be WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE, which in my opinion it is, and it has to be WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS, which I think it isn't. Finally, this article doesn't meet WP:STANDALONE requirements, as there isn't really an extra or insightful info that readers are learning that couldn't be learned in a minibio or sm on French supercentenarians, as states by the editor below. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theres alot of guesswork and opinions in that argument though "in my opinion" "i think it isn't" i respect your opinion but i disagree with it also it doesn't matter what sites the source think is reliable as long as they don't use it for reference in the subject Scooby453w (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright -- This article fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:MILL, because the sources are mostly updates like: "wow! This person is old!" The other sources are genealogy sites. Wikipedia policy states that wikipedia is not, per WP:WWIN, a place for genealogy. it fails the wikipedia notability guidelines, because it is human interest reporting; "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)." I'm characterizing this as human interest reporting because it is a story about a very old person, and a little about her and her life; essentially, again, saying: "Wow! This person is old!" I was saying "I think" and "In my opinion" as placeholders. Thanks :D AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm just saying I do not agree with your assertions so I will vote keep as i belive the sources in the article and the sources I provided are enough Scooby453w (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical longevity fanfluff article: fails WP:NOPAGE, WP:WHYN. Based largely on WP:PRIMARY sources such as GRG/Longeviquest. Content is basically "Born, married, had children, widowed, resided in a few places". Such limited coverage is sometimes included as a minibio in e.g. List of French supercentenarians. A stand-alone article is more likely to be justified if/when she becomes the world's oldest person in 2-3 years. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are grg and lq primary sources? Scooby453w (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As of writing this, she’s the second oldest living person and I believe this merits an article. Ethel Caterham had an article when she was the second oldest living person, along with many others. I’m not sure why Marie-Rose Tessier can’t when she is the second oldest. There are tons of French sources for her, however it is unsure if they are tabloid. PrezDough (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you vote to keep this article? Scooby453w (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That argument violates WP:OTHERSTUFF -- just because something else exists does not mean that his article exists. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what makes them primary sources? Scooby453w (talk)
Strong keep Second-oldest living person on the planet. This deletion proposal should go nowhere. 1779Days (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bad ratonials like this make people with actual arguments to keep look bad she is not even the 2nd oldest living person Scooby453w (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is not the second oldest living person on the planet. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument isn't a whole lot better to be honest I feel like this afd will likley end in no consensus Scooby453w (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inah Canabarro Lucas passed away today, so she is second behind only Ethel Caterham now. 1779Days (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for letting me know. In spite of that, subject still fails WP:BLP1E -- she's famous for being old. Nothing else -- this would be different if she was the oldest living person, or at one point was the oldest living person. She is not. More importantly, as this is a BLP with poor sources, including a French paper with questionable reliability (Actu.) That's a violation of WP:BLPSOURCES. The others are gerontological or genealogy sites, which could be considered primary sources, and the reliability of those sources is questionable. Wikipedia is not a place for genealogy. To add even more to the sources thing, focusing on Actu. Looking at the Actu sources, they are human interest stories. "Wow! This person is old!" Is the overall tone. According to wikipedia policy, human interest stories are weighted as less reliable, less important,and their use is discouraged. Here, we have human interest stories in a source of questionable reliability. If I'm incorrect, please let me know AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have but you keep ignoring us im gonna ignore your claims to actu being unreliable until someone who can read french/knows french sources makes an assessment of the sources. your bold assertions without solid proof isn't helping as well as the fact that several claims you previously made were wrong (such as your claiming the coverage wasn't sustained despite there being 10 years of coverage) Scooby453w (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you felt that I was ignoring you -- I looked into Actu, and can't find a definite answer; that's why I said questionable reliability. I wrote about the process I went through in our earlier conversation above; I don't speak french and I don't claim to be an expert in French media, but maybe someone who does will give us a more definite answer. I'm pretty well versed in news media in general. We also have to be more careful because it is a BLP. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the transparency but if you arent sure about the reliability i think its best to find out before you assume that its not reliable (you might be right but you dont know) it also seems that ethel caterham had a page while she was the 2nd oldest living personScooby453w (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update upon further research i have found numerous pages of people who were the 2nd oldest living person in the world Edith Ceccarelli Tekla Juniewicz Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper Maria Giuseppa Robucci I also find that Maria Branyas Lucile Randon Kane Tanaka Inah Canabarro Lucas and catherham all had pages when they were the 2nd oldest person as well most of them went through afd and survived im not saying this page should survive because the subject is also the 2nd oldest i am just pointing out that the afd results for similar pages have been to keep (Which contradicts an earlier claim that they dont) if the sources were reliable which in your ratoniale you say they are. granted she just became the 2nd oldest yesterday which was after the afd had been filed Scooby453w (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF -- this isn't a valid argument for keeping this article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt say it was i only brought it up because you said being the 2nd oldest living person fails BLP1E which i showed doesn't Scooby453w (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the bottom of that youll see "A small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Most of the cases I provided (Robucci Ceccarelli Juniewicz and randon) were all nominated based on "being old isnt notable" or "fails gng because being old isn't notable" but were kept under the consensus that "the sources provided has the subject pass grg and her notability is being the 2nd oldest person in the world" sound familiar? That's why I made the reference to them as those debates were similar to this one. Scooby453w (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those debates did not result in a precedent that was "effectively final." "A small number of debates..." Beyond that, all of the articles for the AfDs you mentioned had a significantly higher number of reliable sources, and a higher diversity of sources including international coverage for some; see Edith Ceccarelli and Maria Branyas. In the case of Branyas, the decision was keep because she became the oldest living person. Maria Giuseppa Robucci also had waaaaay more coverage than Marie-Rose Tessier. Your examples are not nearly close enough to the AfD at hand, and are not "very similar," besides them both being deletion discussions for supercentenarians. Although, if we're playing this game, please see the AfDs of Mathew Beard. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
matthew beard wasn't the oldest man. his age was debunked there is no comparison Scooby453w (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The website "Actu" [26] looks like the French equivalent of [27] which is not considered a WP:RS. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thats not actu https://actu.fr/pays-de-la-loire/les-sables-d-olonne_85194/qui-est-marie-rose-tessier-habitante-de-la-vendee-et-nouvelle-doyenne-des-francais_56675490.html this ism Scooby453w (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay thats only one source Scooby453w (talk) 02:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I misread the comment but that is still only 1 source just delete it there are plenty other sources that have been pointed out the lq source for example is a secondary source as it is a complete bio of the subject using references from the newsScooby453w (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a french editor (or someone who understands the language) to come for a proper source check/analysis Scooby453w (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Actu is reliable or not, per my arguments above I continue to doubt the necessity of keeping this article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that Marie-Rose Tessier is notable enough for an article, with many other supercentenarians having an article whilst the 2nd oldest living person (including Ethel Caterham, however we likely will need a French editor to analyse the sources to check if they are reliable or not.PrezDough (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know the nominater will pull out the NEXIST essay to counter this ajd would like to point out his earlier argument was "being the 2nd oldest living person violates BLP1E" however that is not true as i have provided examples of pages that were afd under the same argument "being the 2nd oldest living person fails BLP1E" which was refuated by editors who pointed out that the sources makes the article pass gng Scooby453w (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST isn't needed here. @PrezDough violated WP:OTHERSTUFF. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
by pointing out your BLP1E argument based on her status as 2nd oldest is faulty? Scooby453w (talk) 03:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the reason for keeping was bc another article exists. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read the bottom of the essay Scooby453w (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but he wasn't referencing an AfD; he was referencing the article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not impressed by the quality of the sources being used here, and sources that have been brought forward here which look to be unreliable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is literally the second oldest person. And, if she doesn't die, she could become the oldest person. I mean we can start this talk again if she dies before Ethel Caterham, But We Should keep this until that happens, but if she dies after Ethel Caterham, we should definitely keep this article. --54rt678 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what about the sources Scooby453w (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with DerbyCountyinNZ, never really been a fan of people having articles just for being really old. Her article shouldn't be kept for the same reason we don't have articles for every French titleholder or any specific country for that matter. Avengingbandit 01:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources like Ouest-France (May 21, 2019; January 27, 2021), Franceinfo (May 21, 2024), and Alouette (May 21, 2023) provide detailed reports on Tessier’s milestones (109th to 114th birthdays), her status as France’s oldest person since Lucile Randon’s death in 2023, and personal anecdotes (e.g., daily wine, surviving COVID-19). [28]. Also a strong source for her information [29]. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[30] This one as well documents her life. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not finding much through online searches. Interestingly, there was an Australian Youth Theatre in the 1940s in Sydney. I think it may be necessary to look in books and journals that aren't online for more info on the various branches and names of this organisation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I closed this as a Delete but a trusted editor requested that I relist so I'm accommodating that request. Please consider their additions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm still in the middle of expanding and editing the article and will return to this discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle, any follow-up here? -- asilvering (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Have just completed total revision of the article once through. Will add comments below the line. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:ORG now that sources have been improved on the article. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment. I initially came to this article on 19 April expecting to !vote delete, because the article looked like this. As the editors above all noted, the article was very poorly sourced, with no secondary sources, and essentially read like a promotional directory listing, likely created/edited by someone with a close connection to the school. (If this was you, please have a read of WP:NOTPROMO as Wikipedia has policies against advertising.) The nominator said they struggled to find secondary sources, and RebeccaGreen, an editor with impressive research chops in this area, said she didn't find much online, either. All in all, it was not pointing in a promising direction.

However, RebeccaGreen also suggested that part of the problem may have been the fact that Stage School Australia was previously known as Australian Youth Theatre. Thus, this suggested two logical avenues for research: 1) Could reliable secondary sources be found if we conducted searches beyond "just Google"? 2) Could reliable secondary sources be found if we used search terms other than "Stage School Australia"? Stage School Australia is like the umbrella organisation name for Australian Youth Theatre, Youth Australian Broadway Chorus, and Australian Boys Dance Academy. To make things even more complicated, over its 40-year history, it has also been known as Victorian Youth Theatre and Children's Performing Company of Australia.

Searching ProQuest using all the school's past and present names yielded significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources over the course of the school's 40+ year history. The article now looks like this (see Stage School Australia) and was completely rewritten from top to bottom. In terms of the best pieces of coverage, I would point to the 2016 feature article on YABC "Youth Theatre Far From Child's Play" in the Herald Sun (while it includes quotes from the artistic director of YABC, it also includes facts that were vetted by the journalist and likely the editorial staff); the 2011 article "Rude Awakenings", which was written by Robin Usher for The Age, a major national newspaper, in which he examines the YABC's somewhat eyebrow-raising production of the coming-of-age rock musical Spring Awakening which they staged with real teenagers playing the parts of teens exploring sex and dealing with abortion and suicide (interviewing some of the children as well as the school and including facts vetted by the journalist and editors); a 2010 review of a YABC performance at the Adelaide Fringe festival in The Advertiser; and this 2025 review in The Scoop of a Stage School Australia production of Seussical (easily found via Google once you start adding more than one search term or parameter).

I have removed all the directory-esque course listing information from the article, and also removed all mentions of alumni which aren't backed by sources (primary or secondary). I have also expanded the article with facts from the many additional sources which were found.

To conclude, this is why I decided to !vote keep per WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:HEY. Pinging RebeccaGreen. Cheers. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. asilvering (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luminosity Entertainment (American film company)

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

Non-notable film company. Sources provided only mention the subject in passing. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Author appears to have a COI, since they also created Luminosity Entertainment (American film studio), which was an exact duplicate of this article. Possible PE as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept, kindly move this article to Luminosity Entertainment which is a red link. The current title includes a unnessesary disambiguation. Thanks and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable music company, refs does provide any details of the company. Fails WP:NCORP. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cherry

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Of the four sources, three aren't even about Alan Cherry, just mention his name in passing. The fourth is a very sparse IMDB page. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 19:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the nominator's comments relate to the notes section instead of the references section where there is direct coverage about him here, and here. There is also this lengthy piece here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comment. The subject might not be too notable but it is not insignificant either. Needs additional references and editing. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added many sources, including some in books published by the University of Illinois Press. I would say that he meets WP:GNG, or at least WP:BASIC. His work at Brigham Young University's African-American Oral History Project, recording over 200 interviews with African-American converts to Mormonism, is covered in newspaper articles and book chapters, as is the fact that he joined the LDS in the 1960s, when not many African-Americans had. I have also edited the article, removing the non-encyclopaedic content. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed improved the article. Great work! fellow editor RebeccaGreen! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've reviewed the article and the sources now included clearly show significant coverage, especially his work with BYU’s African-American Oral History Project and his unique role as an early African-American convert in the LDS Church during the 1960s. Multiple reliable sources like academic books and news articles cover him in depth. Notability is met per WP:GNG. Setwardo (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Comedy. ✗plicit 14:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Champoy (TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing to support notability found in a BEFORE DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A total failure of WP:GNG. Wbm4567 (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No contest. Until we have a gold mine of Philippine newspapers pre-1987 in the internet, Wikipedia is not the place for articles about Philippine TV shows, films and pop culture pre-1987. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment frustrating no? It's one of the more prominent comedies in the 1980s but the internet thinks it doesn't exist. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we have newspaper archives from this time period, we can easily write something about it. I mean, I was able to bring NCAA Season 6 basketball tournaments (1930; for reference, we're now at NCAA Season 100 basketball tournaments) to WP:DYK solely because of newspaper archives. We even have UAAP Season 50 basketball tournaments (1987, the earliest year Google News has newspapers from the Philippines; for reference, we're now at UAAP Season 87 basketball tournaments). Howard the Duck (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suppose the internet thinks it "exists", just not good enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Comedy A definite WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 23:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Comedy per WP:ATD-R. That article seems to be suitable for this case, especially since Champoy is listed there. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Comedy per WP:ATD-R. I've added a cite that verifies that this was indeed a comedy show in RPN there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Radio Philippines Network#Comedy.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

George Santos

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject of the article has been sentenced to 7 years in prison.^[1] Do you think this guy still deserves to keep his article? Kldaeroiu (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-gop-congressman-george-santos-sentenced-87-months-prison-federal-fraud-case.amp

Speedy keep - no valid reason for deletion has been provided. Being sentenced to prison is no reason to delete and someone having an article isn't based on whether they are a good person or not. We have articles on people currently in prison such as Ghislaine Maxwell and Ian Watkins (Lostprophets singer). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Wikipedia has articles on serial killers and genocidaires. Santos is a notable figure, all the more so because of his conviction. 143.239.9.7 (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - ridiculous deletion rationale. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 14:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - invalid deletion rationale. MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - This is not anywhere close to a valid reason for a AFD. And don't forget to trout the nominator. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Weber (artist)

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Arts, and New York. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Artsy	Primary source database	User submitted content by galleries/auction houses with paid subscriptions	Non-independent user submitted data	✘ No
Harpers Gallery	Artist's gallery showing their work (PR)	Press release in the form of a personal letter from the galleries to the artist	PR, not a review	✘ No
27East	Press release in local paper submitted by the artist's gallery	Press release	PR, not a review	✘ No
Dan's Papers	~ large portion of the text is the artist talking about himself/his work	Profile in local paper	~ Hybrid profile/interview/PR for show	? Unknown
Glenn Horowitz Bookseller	Press release from a bookseller	PR	PR	✘ No
Women's Wear Daily "Fashion Scoops"	Women's wear trade journal	Trade journal for fashion, lifestyle and women's wear	Fashion scoop/society lifestyle (not a serious art magazine; text about Weber is partly occluded by a paywall.)	? Unknown
Gothamist	Local news blog	~ Widely distributed blog	Article is about a local controversy regarding his work, does not seem to be an art review	? Unknown
Grenning Gallery	Art gallery showing his work	Artist bio - user submitted content for selling artwork	Gallery listing	✘ No
Ochi Gallery	Filler. Art gallery press release for another artist	The gallery exist and but this is a press release for a different artist; it is only a name check mention of Weber	This is a press release for another artist, who simply mentions at the bottom that they had shown their work at Nick Weber's studio	✘ No
Boo Hooray Summer Rental	Press release for a show at Boo-Hooray Summer Rental, a "gallery that can be rented for shows in the summer"	PR	Press release, connected source	✘ No
KD Hamptons Art Scene	PR Puff piece local coverage	Press announcement in local "luxury lifestyle diary"	PR, press announcement in local lifestyle blog	✘ No
Chelsea Walls	Interview in the gallery's blog	Interview between artist and gallery	No editorial content, just a few questions	✘ No
Dan's Papers	~ Routine local coverage in local paper, interview with the artist's gallery	Local coverage in local paper	PR for the gallery showing Weber's work	? Unknown
Printed Matter	Book seller listing	Printed Matter is a bookstore selling his book	Book seller listing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete The source analysis table, a nice touch, is very compelling and I couldn't find anything else of worth. Couldn't find a single museum that contains a collection. References are profiles. Nothing really. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No Getty ULAN listing [31] and the source review table pretty much explains the rest. Lack of sourcing or critical review. Oaktree b (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've spent quite a bit of BEFORE time searching of the kind of coverage needed for inclusion, and haven't been able to to find what's needed to substantiate this artists's notability per WP's criteria. The sources consist of user-submitted data, press releases, connected sources (such as galleries that show his work), hyper-local or PR trivial coverage, social media posts and primary sourcing. Does not meet GNG nor NARTIST at this time. Netherzone (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mateja Njamculović

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

He only played nine minutes of professional level before moving to lower leagues. Corresponding article on Serbian Wikipedia is slightly longer with more than ten references, but even secondary ones are just passing mentions (including mondo.rs and Mozzart Sport). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addverb Technologies

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. I am nominating this page for deletion again, as the last AfD ended without a consensus and took place over two months ago. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:33, 26 April 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) 12:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator. fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. mostly routine coverage and announcements without significant independent depth. Setwardo (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.- Imcdc Contact 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotalk

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:28, 26 April 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) 12:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Before doing a WP:BEFORE the article is just a collection of facts from marketing materials and business announcements. When I did search, the only things that I found that might be considered independent are pieces like this or this one talking about it (or is it astrology as a whole) as a scam. These articles aren't very indepth either so I feel comfortable with my Delete vote. Moritoriko (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently this platform doesn't seem notable. The sources are limited to business updates and routine funding news. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. Promotional. - Imcdc Contact 01:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeeksForGeeks

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:19, 26 April 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) 12:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of this article appears to be questionable with most sources seeming like undisclosed paid content and no real independent coverage exists. The editing history suggests that this article has largely been edited by the GeeksForGeeks team. Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources.Very promotional. - Imcdc Contact 01:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Since all parts of this article came from other articles in the first place, and the merge discussion here hasn't achieved strong consensus, I'm opting to delete. Editors interested in rearranging how this content is presented on wikipedia are welcome to start discussions about that elsewhere. asilvering (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of World War I

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

Near (but worse) copy of List of Battlecruisers that adds unnessessary redundancy. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan for full discussion. GGOTCC (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GGOTCC (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is just an unnecessary portion of List of battlecruisers. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - per nom and Tyler; the main list is not so long that it needs to be split into sub-lists. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - How about merging them with the List of battleships of World War I? so it would be "List of battleships and battlecruisers of World War I", I think there's still interest on seeing what kind of "big guns-armed capital ship" that were in service during the war, and it maybe useful to those that are unfamiliar with naval history. Jauhsekali (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge As far as the merge possibility goes, the other option might be to merge into List of cruisers of World War I instead. I don't think the decision is as clear-cut as for the World War II battlecruisers, though, so I'm not sure which would be the better option for these ones. DeemDeem52 (talk) 14:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree with the idea of merging them with something like List of battleships of World War I by Jauhsekali (talk), though I would suggest merging into something even more generic like "List of Warships of World War I" then yes I think it's an awesome idea by Parsecboy (talk) of making sub lists (e.g. battle cruisers, battle ships,etc.) under the new article. so as to be a more cohesive list.Villkomoses (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Insufficient support for a merge. asilvering (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of battlecruisers of World War II

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

Near-complete (but worse) copy of List of Battlecruisers that adds unnessessary redundancy. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Operation Majestic Titan for full discussion. GGOTCC (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. GGOTCC (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have List of battlecruisers. NavjotSR (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List is just an unnecessary portion of List of battlecruisers. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect - no reason to list a handful of ships (potentially as few as 3, depending on how strictly one defines the scope of the list). List of battlecruisers is not so long that we need to split it into sub-lists. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - How about merging them with the List of battleships of World War II and turning it into "List of battleships and battlecruisers of World War II"? and so the list would contain all the "big guns-armed capital ship" during the war. Jauhsekali (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Regarding the merge possibility -- the other option might be to list them alongside the heavy cruisers already listed in List of cruisers of World War II. Since some of those (e.g. the Alaska-class) are sometimes considered battlecruisers anyway, perhaps it would be a better fit there? DeemDeem52 (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – I think the best target is List of cruisers of World War II, since it has already been noted that the distinction between cruiser and battlecruiser is blurry. Toadspike [Talk] 14:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Prakash

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

Article subject requests deletion per Wikipedia:NPF and Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE . See VRT Ticket 2025031410001554. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this subject is barely notable, and the sourcing is a mix of good, bad and ugly, so I see no harm in deleting this article. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where can the VRT Ticket be found, please? I would like to know the reason why this person requests deletion of the article. As cinematographer on 5 notable films, he certainly appears to meet WP:CREATIVE, and I don't see anything negative or defamatory in the article. He has easily findable profiles on Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, and articles about him in various media, so he's not really a low profile person. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can ask questions about VRT tickets at the Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Editors are encouraged to create an article on the scandal itself and redirect this there, however. asilvering (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Fu

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

Negative undersourced BLP. Most of the article text is a WP:COATRACK for negative undersourced BLP material about someone else. I prodded this but my prod was removed by User:A. B. who provided as evidence for notability a newspaper article stating in vague terms legal charges against the subject and another newspaper article with a very brief mention that he was sentenced, neither used as footnotes for anything. I don't think these provide WP:SIGCOV. His position as deputy mayor does not pass WP:NPOL and the conviction does not have the evidence of lasting interest needed for WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to David’s comments:

I added 3, not 2, refs including a NY Times front page article
News and newspaper searches turned up more out there.
The South China Morning Post article is exclusively about Lan Fu’s troubles
When searching for refs, add Xiamen mayor to filter out other people with that name.
This was my edit summary when removing the PROD: ” remove PROD. Notable but the tagged concern remains: this may be more about the _alleged_ kidnapping of his son, Lan Meng, by Chinese authorities in Australia as a hostage for Lan Fu's return. We don't have a Lan Meng article”
This article is likely not a BLP since all the refs said LAN Fu was sentenced to death 2 decades ago as I noted in another edit summary. (There’s no lingering on Chinese death rows).
WP:NPOL: Xiamen has over 5 million inhabitants; it’s larger than every North American city except NY and larger than any city in the EU.
Re not adding footnotes to go with the refs: I’d already spent 60+ minutes doing the WP:BEFORE and I was late for lunch
- I tagged the article with an inline template and moved on.

I encourage others to look at the existing refs and what else is out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's best to cover this as a biography article, but the scandal itself and his involvement is covered in several books [32] [33] [34] for just a few, there are many more. He was a very major player in this scandal and he was a public figure that was convicted so at the very least his name should redirect somewhere. Xiamen is a city of 5 million so there's also probably coverage of him as a mayor in Chinese. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above as well as PARAKANYAA‘s. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: or merge to an article about the corruption scandal. The NY Times article is about a bigger scandal, Fu is mentioned briefly, archive here [35]. The SCMP source is probably better [36] (archived copy), but they both deal more with the scandal than about the individual. I suppose Fu could be notable, but there is a decent amount of sourcing about the corruption trial/event (even the books cited a few comments above mention more about the event than about this person, who is only mentioned). Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Well, you say redirect, but we don't have any article to redirect to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's likely sourcing in Mandarin, the scandals were probably the only thing dramatic enough to make it to Anglophone printing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to create the article I suppose. We have at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we keep this until we have a stub to merge it with. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep. The article has his name in traditional characters, not simplified. This is hardly noticeable to humans but impacts whether you find anything via ctrl+F searching. The simplified version is 蓝甫. I am looking for solid sources, but my gut feeling is that this guy is likely notable as deputy mayor of Xiamen and for being involved in a corruption scandal that garnered national interest. Here is a 2023 piece describing the scandal in great detail [37] – I'm not sure how reliable the source is though.

One could argue that the subject was only one person involved in a scandal (the "Yunhua smuggling case") that got hundreds of people arrested and sentenced, but he is named by sources as having received one of the harshest sentences of all defendants [38], so presumably he played an outsized role in the scandal. This would also be the counterargument to BLP1E. Toadspike [Talk] 13:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a lot of sourcing on this guy, probably because the corruption case was in the very early days of the Chinese internet, but this [39] might constitute sigcov. He is also mentioned twice in this [40] scholarly review of the case – again, showing that his role was more significant than that of the hundreds of other defendants. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four Cypresses (song)

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

Does not meet GNG, could merge with Grizzly Bear (band) but the only listed sources is one website and a Instagram post; not notable. Also, significant portion of article is a quote. GoldRomean (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two new notable websites to the page, and will look into adding more. Idon'tknowwhattomakethis (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I do believe that I have edited and added to this article enough that it is sufficiently notable. If you have any more advice I would be happy to try and add more, but if not I think it is worthy of keeping. Idon'tknowwhattomakethis (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Four Cypresses redirects to Painted Ruins. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. BD2412 T 19:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Domani

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

not notable actress, not meeting WP:ACTOR, Anybio. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets Wp: NACTRESS. Can be improved and sourced with sources from corresponding article in Indonesian (and pages about the numerous productions she had significant roles in from the same Wikipedia), for example; the same goes for the awards she won or was nominated for. -Mushy Yank. 19:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk:Mushy Yank, you'll have to actually produce some evidence and sources here. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Again, I am directing you and others to the Wikipedia article in Indonesian. And so is Kentuckyfriedtucker. This page-and some sources- are two clicks away; you click on the title on top of this page and then on one of the 3 links under Languages. You’ll find some sources. You also have a page in Telugu and one in Malay but with less sources. Through those pages you can explore pages about her roles in notable productions, with sources. Mostly in Indonesian. Or you can do a BEFORE if you don’t like that method. Plenty of bylined articles in Google news about her, some significant, some ”people”-oriented (she might even meet WP: GNG, for all I know but it allows to verify the roles and their significance-it will take you muuuch more time, though) No evidence the nom has done a WP:BEFORE, btw. Ask them -and the user who refers their !vote to their rationale- what they found. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 10:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Tiny detail: I am a bit busy and will probably leave it at that but if you want me to know you replied to a comment I made and respond [which seemed to be the case], please either ping me or leave me a message (or mention my user name; a link to the user's tak page does not create a notification, as far as I know; at least, I did not receive any). -Mushy Yank. 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OatPancake: did you review available sources at all? MarioGom (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are two correlating language entries available where references could be pulled from.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Kentuckyfriedtucker, I'm not sure what that means. Please show/link/produce the reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  See above. WP:NEXIST indeed states that "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." (emphasis mine) but that's not the case here: Kentuckyfriedtucker and I clearly indicated where you could find the sources and what method to follow to check whether this actress meets the applicable guideline. As a token of good will (although even D !voters could do it too and nominators SHOULD do a BEFORE and indicate what they found and why they think it is not enough in their opinion), I have added a few sources and links to help navigation and facilitate verification of the importance of her roles in notable productions. But you will also note that the nominator did not address MarioGom's very valid concern. Again, thank you for your time and concern. -Mushy Yank. 12:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am referring to these pages:
    
    Megan Domani
    
    Megan Domani
    
    Megan Domani
    
    My mistake. There are actually three language pages. -- Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 11:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[but, again, her significant roles (including lead roles) in notable productions can be checked through corresponding WP Indonesian pages].[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Showing these sources and explaining why they meet or do not meet notability criteria would be helpful. Complaining that the nom did not do a WP:BEFORE check is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at the page's recent history before writing your relisting comment would have be a good idea, maybe?@Asilvering I had indeed added quite a few sources, and the AfD-changed template and my comment indicate that quite clearly. Nothing says to "show" the sources both at the AfD and in the article. If such a requirement existed, it would be purely vexatious and extremely bureaucratic. Another user and I also indicated where and how you could find sources and check the notability of this actress, if you didn't want to open the article or do a BEFORE for some reason. I indicated the nominator had apparently made no effort to check existing sources (and had not replied to another user's inquiry about that), whereas they should have and I consider it is a relevant and helfpful comment, in particular given the fact that another user bases their 2-word !vote on the nom's rationale. I also clearly indicated why I believe the actress meets WP:NACTRESS and even probably WP:GNG. So that I am very sorry to say that I very much disagree with the implications of your relisting comment, and pretty much everything in it, to be honest. -Mushy Yank. 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely helpful for both AfD closers and other AfD participants if you would spend more time demonstrating and discussing sources in AfDs and less time trying to pick a fight with every other editor responding to them. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an unhelpful, inappropriate and unfair comment....SOURCES ARE ON THE PAGE.....and I spent a lot of time adding them in the context of this AfD. The general implications of your sentence are also totally unjustified. "Pick a fight"....what are you even talking about??? Your relist comment was inaccurate. You don't like the fact that I explained why? Fine. But replying with a personal attack was completely uncalled for. -Mushy Yank. 09:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added verify that NACTOR has been met through many significant roles in notable productions, likely GNG as well. SCTV Awards are also probably enough for NCREATIVE through significant critical attention. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO . She has led and supported roles in multiple notable Indonesian productions, including Jodoh yang Tertukar, Cinta karena Cinta (TV series), and films like Satu untuk Selamanya and Azzamine. Domani’s awards and roles in high-profile Indonesian media satisfy WP:BASIC with sources. Editz2341231 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Oxalis fruticosa. ✗plicit 14:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxalis rusciformis

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

Plants of the World does not recognise this species. William Avery (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. William Avery (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This name appears to have been used in the past [41], but I don't see anything past the 1930s. I don't have enough knowledge in this area of plant biology to !vote, waiting for others to explain a bit more before I give a decision. Oaktree b (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oxalis rusciformis a synonym of Oxalis fruticosa subsp. fruticosa (sources: catalogue of life, world plants, powo, wfo), so we could create Oxalis fruticosa and merge. A rename to Oxalis fruticosa subsp. fruticosa isn't ideal when the species article doesn't even exist, especially because subspecies must meet the general notability guideline. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 21:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and created an article for Oxalis fruticosa. I still think some sort of merge/redirect situation would be appropriate. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect PrinceTortoise has it right: it's a recognized synonym of one of the two subspecies, and should be redirected to the species article. To that I have added a synonyms list and mention of the subspecies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxalis fruticosa. If a scientific name is synonymized by groups like POWO and not accepted in a flora of record, then it out to not have a Wikipedia article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxalis fruticosa. If we agree to redirect, that article needs a sentence noting that O. rusciformis was the former name of the subspecies, as opposed to a synonym of the whole species, to avoid astonishment. Thanks for making the article, PrinceTortoise!

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiqul Islam Khan

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

Not even close to meeting notability (people). Somajyoti ✉ 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 07:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as it does not meet WP:NBIO and WP:BASIC. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More sources must be added. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No in-depth sources. Macarius Ibne Mito (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Status quo prevails. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorfoz

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

Article about an album that fails WP:GNG. It has 36 sources, but all of them are ether unreliable, dead or not related to it at all. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhoIsCentreLeft yeah? so sabah, hürriyet, radikal, which are major newspapers, are unreliable, and which of the references are unrelated? Just because something is in a language you don't understand, doesn't mean it's unrelated. Use google translate. Link rot is a natural occurrnce on the internet over time (ever checked when this article waswritten?) How about first trying to inform the writer about link rot, before nominating something for delition? This album sold 300,000 copies in Turkey. Tarkan is to date the most sold artist in that country. Which part of the notability requirements does this not meet? Xia ^{talk to me} 06:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This album is simply not notable. I checked all the sources cited in this article and none proved its notability. I searched about this album on Google and got zero results. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here, the Mü-yap certification of 300,000 copies sold, which means Diamond certification. [42] These sources are all in the article and are all about the album: Hürriyet (Hürriyet); Hürriyet; full breakdown of the album song by song in SABAH (Sabah); Vatan (Vatan) -- these are all reputable publications in Turkey. Even if we only consider these 4 links, that's already covering the notability requirements... Just because you don't know how to search in TURKISH, doesn't mean the album isn't notable. Not everything has to be on the English language internet, you know. Xia ^{talk to me} 15:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep‎ (non-admin closure) VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Null sign

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

(Removed prod.) This article conflates mathematical and linguistic uses of the symbol, implying that these uses are related. Two problems: First, the concepts in the two fields are quite different. The linguistic use is to represent a linguistic element that might be in that place but is not. The mathematical use is for a set that contains nothing; in particular, the set containing the empty set is different from the empty set, whereas no such distinction is evident in the linguistic use. Second, the term "null sign", in my experience, is not used for this symbol in mathematics.
It is possible (I wouldn't know) that this is in fact the standard name for this symbol in linguistics. In that case, an alternative to deletion would be to rewrite the article so as to make it entirely about linguistics, and remove the implication that the name "null sign" is used for the empty-set symbol in mathematics. Trovatore (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding is that this article is about the typographic symbol. Typically typographic symbols have multiple uses in different fields and it is normal to discuss the different uses in an article about the symbol. In the Unicode standard (first ref in the article), we can verify that codepoint 2205 has the description "EMPTY SET" and represents the "null set" in math and the "null morpheme" in linguistics, both described in the article. If you look at for instance, Exclamation mark, the article has the same kind of structure. Factorials in math are unrelated to exclamations in linguistics, but they both use the symbol and are described there. I think it would be good to clarify in the article that math and linguistic uses for the symbol are different concepts and that the symbol is referred to by different names, if it is not already clear. That is a matter of editing, however, not deletion. If you have beef with the title of the article, that could also be discussed on the talk page. I don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, what would you say to merging into Ø (disambiguation)? On reflection that would address most of my concerns. --Trovatore (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It's a little tricky because disambig pages shouldn't have expository content. This article doesn't have much but it has a little. Maybe instead merge into Ø? --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Mark viking that this is about the symbol and its uses. As for the name of the symbol, there is certainly some use of the term "null sign" in mathematical sources, eg a 1969 article in Quarterly of Applied Mathematics [43], and there are also texts about nursing and pharmacy that advise against using the null sign ∅ because it can be misread as a numeral, eg The Nurse, The Math, The Meds [44], p 114. I have added some sources for use in maths and linguistics. I don't think the Use in photography section belongs in this article - the symbol for diameter, according to Ø (disambiguation)#Science, technology and engineering, has a different Unicode value. I'm looking for sources which set out the two (at least) uses of the null sign. I don't think this should be merged to the DAB page, but that page should have a link to this page. It definitely shouldn't be merged to Ø, because that is specifically about the Scandinavian letter (and has a different Unicode number again). RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is about the symbol itself rather than a specific use of it. It’s meant to cover ALL of the symbol’s uses (at least, all of the ones that are notable enough to include). Though it could be rewritten to show that the term “null sign” is not always used for it (and particularly not used in mathematics).

Against merging it to Ø per RebeccaGreen. That article is about its use as a letter in Scandinavian language rather than its use in math/linguistics. ApexParagon (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I've exactly gotten my point across here. The issue is not having an article on the symbol. The issue is separating out these two or three uses of the symbol and claiming that those are the same symbol. That is unsupported WP:OR. ApexParagon mentions "the use in math/linguistics", but no evidence has been given that there is a symbol that applies to both math and linguistics, distinct from the other symbols that look the same.
I say "the issue", but there's still the issue that the name "null sign" is not used in mathematics, at least not standardly; I don't know whether it's used in linguistics. However it's true that issue could potentially be addressed by a page move, if there were anything to move it to, which I doubt there is. --Trovatore (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The "keeps" are unsubstantiated by evidence in this AfD - if !voters find sources that conclusively demonstrate SIGCOV, they need to be provided here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [45], book mentions [46]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link appears from its thumbnail to be a business directory and does not allow me to see more than the thumbnail. Your second is exactly the sort of thing I meant by "brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate"; I do not think it constitutes in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein, and own search. did not find significant coverage to establish GNG or NCREATIVE. Would be helpful if keep !voters could link some of the coverage they allude to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian economic crisis (2022–present)

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

Delete. This article does not meet WP:GNG. There is no broad consensus among reliable, independent sources that a distinct, notable "Canadian economic crisis" has occurred beginning in 2022. The article relies heavily on opinion pieces, politically affiliated think tanks, and partisan commentary rather than neutral, verifiable sources such as Statistics Canada, the Bank of Canada, the IMF, or the OECD. Furthermore, the framing of the term "crisis" appears to be politically motivated rather than supported by neutral economic reporting (WP:NPOV). Coverage of economic challenges such as inflation, productivity stagnation, and housing affordability already exists in appropriate general articles like Economy of Canada and Economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. This article promotes a particular narrative, conflating political and economic developments, and fails core Wikipedia policies including WP:NOR and WP:RS. Recommend deletion or, alternatively, merging any truly neutral, verifiable material into broader economic coverage. Fusio15 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How is it that an article supposedly describing events 2022–present has few sources prior to 2024? I haven't found any of them that date back to the 2022 origin of the so-called crisis. This suggests to me that the doom-and-gloom scenario is a recent invention.

This article was the first time I'd heard about an economic crisis in Canada. It's clear that the country has problems, and the word "crisis" has been applied to very recent political events. However, it seems exaggeration to lump a lot of negative opinion together to depict the country as a failed state. Such an appearance is a political POV.

Most of the world has been in turmoil since before the pandemic. So it really isn't notable. Most of the world has been upset by the actions of an American president who acts illegally and changes his mind frequently. Canada has been the subject of a series of "big lies" from within and without. This article seems to continue that theme.

An opinion in the Washington Examiner loses credibility with me when they refer to the head of Canada's government as "the Premier". Perhaps it is such sources which gave an editor the idea that Canada had a president. Most of the references are to partisan opinion pieces. Such references have been cherry picked to support the existence of a crisis since 2022.

I think the subjects would be best covered in separate articles such as Investment, GDP, and Unemployment. As it is, beginning each topic with a condemnation strikes me as lacking balance, if not evidence of questionable motivation. Put together, they amount to a point of view which lacks neutrality. Hence, I think it best to delete this article.

Humpster (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a vague + opinionated article. Much of the sourcing of "facts" appears to come from the fraser institute which, being a libertarian/conservative "think" tank, is prone to cherry picking their data to favor a certain viewpoint. Article definitely violates WP:NPOV.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and egregious NPOV violation

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and failure to meet NPOV. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOV. I agree with Fusio15's & Humpster's comments. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 22:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Fusio15, article fails NPOV and relies heavily on biased, right-wing sources. Independent reliable sources do not describe the post-2022 Canadian economic situation as an "economic crisis". This is not to say I am opposed to any article which ascribes the existence of an economic "crisis" in Canada - it's just that this article is too broad and uses a descriptive term that is not reflected in the sources. As an example, there is a better case for an article like "Canadian housing crisis (2015-present)", because multiple independent RS (besides sources like Fraser) use that term to describe the status of Canadian housing: see e.g. 1 2 3 4. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A precarious synthesis from the moment of the article's creation. Sources have no common thesis about which factors constitute a crisis, or that they are collectively talking about the same crisis. Many of the sources are low-quality (like the Fraser Institute's laughable context-free listicle as the very first citation). TheFeds 23:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Morrison

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nominator has been blocked and never presented an argument outside 'this was generated by AI' when it certainly was not. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 16:34, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical auto profile

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

I don't see significant coverage,contains information from primary sources or AI (some artificial programming model) or or copyrighted Iban14mxl (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Last edit to the article was in 2021, so it's highly doubtful an LLM generated any text here. Nathannah • 📮 00:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have analyzed the article's text with several AI text detectors, and they all yield the same result: the text is human. The mention of "not having enough coverage" is also questionable (to put it mildly), and the user did not substantiate it. One last point is that the user requesting the block claims a copyright violation, but the analysis of the article shows no evidence of plagiarism. That said, although the article does need improvement—such as fixing the reference formatting—I believe it should remain on Wikipedia. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Important: The user who opened the inquiry has been indefinitely blocked from the English Wikipedia. CarlosEduardoPA (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be more specific of what CarlosEduardoPA said, the nominator was blocked as a sock. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Area Community Awareness Action Team

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

Run of the mill local organization devoted to some local causes with a local scope. Coverage in sources completely fails WP:NORG and too ultra hyperlocal to be even considered for WP:NONPROFIT Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Companies, and Colorado. Graywalls (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BioSapien

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not add up to WP:ORGCRIT. Declined through AfC then moved to mainspace by submitter so would be opposed to dratifying. CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, United Arab Emirates, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found a brief mention in Bloomberg obviously it is not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a biotech start-up, previously draftified and rejected at AFC, then moved into mainspace by the article creator, which leaves AFD as the remaining option. The article text largely covers financial fundraising, which falls under WP:CORPTRIV, product features, and the company founder's inclusion on award lists - again insufficient for the firm's notability. That leaves the content about the company's products, and here we need to be cautious about claims for the potential of new medical devices. Overall, I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I moved this article to drafts on 17 March 2025. It was put back into the main space without any real improvements. It clearly fails the WP:NCORP standards. Charlie (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP jolielover♥talk 19:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate

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

Probably fails WP:ORG A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, United Kingdom, and England. A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Jackson

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

No indication of notability for this Costa Rican footballer. I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Costa Rica, Colorado, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admittedly him having such a common name hampers searching but I could find nothing remotely resembling SIGCOV for this guy and what is already in the article is primary from a team website or goes to a 404 error. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Not the strongest keep arguments I've seen, but consensus nevertheless. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John 20:3–4

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

I'm going to tread carefully, but I do not think that these short bible verses about two disciples running to look at a tomb (with none of the further context) passes Wikipedia notability guidelines for bible verses, and "media." See: Wikipedia:Bible verses. This is not a major bible verse. It was analyzed by John Calvin, but then again he commented on many, many bible verses. I'd like to say in advance that I'm not knowledgeable in this area, and my assessment is that notability guidelines aren't met. I'm pretty sure that if other verses (before and after) are included, all of those verses together become notable. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Bible, and Christianity. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't looked, but I would guess there is not a single bible verse that does not have sigcov. It's the bible. But haven't looked, so not voting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is, in fact, plenty of RS commentary on any verse in the New Testament, but what's being asked for is some undefined merger into a larger unit of text. That's sensible, but, again, not what is being sought here. No objection to a specific proposal on how to better cover these few Bible verses, but this one article is not a place to solve a different problem, like where coverage should stop and end... Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with John 20:2 to John 20:2–4, since really these three verses go to one complete story (she ran to Peter+dwjl who ran themselves back). Hyperbolick (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could be expanded, but hundreds of scholars have written analyses of each verse of the Bible. - SimonP (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @SimonP: But have they tended to write these on verses in isolation? Or on sets of verses telling a single and complete story? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Hyperbolick: Responding late on this, but yes that is how Biblical commentaries are traditionally structured. They deal with each verse independently. writing a few sentences or paragraphs on each one. Calvin's commentary is an example of the structure that is still standard in academic works. - SimonP (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is there any book whose individual units have been subject to such extensive WP:SIGCOV? The volume of verse-by-verse biblical commentary would show almost any verse in the Bible to pass WP:GNG and this passage is no excpetion. Wikipedia:Bible verses is an archived survey that was never proposed as policy, much less was or is policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinco Vodka

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

Very small artisan vodka label, article is written as a puff piece. This article, fails notability guidelines for products. Sourcing is either puffy profiles or the label's website, so sourcing is biased. Almost the entire thing is promotion, puffery, and bais. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Texas. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 02:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider broadening the article to be about Azar Distilling per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Martini, Nico (2024). Texas Cocktails: An Elegant Collection of Over 100 Recipes Inspired by the Lone Star State. Kennebunkport, Maine: Appleseed Press Book. Cider Mill Press. p. 271. ISBN 978-1-60433-768-6. Retrieved 2025-04-26 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "At about 8:15 AM on October 24th, 2014, there was an explosion at Azar Distilling, strong enough to send a man flying through (yes— through) a wall. A small fire was started and it took Bexar County firefighters about 40 minutes to put out the flames. The worker was sent to the hospital, but sustained no injuries... but now he has a hell of a story. When he arrived on the scene, Trey Azar feared he'd lost everything. To lighten the mood, the volunteer firefighters suggested that he rename the brand "Cinco Fuego." Through sheer force of will, they re-opened just 95 days after the blast. Proudly hailing from San Antonio, Trey and Kimberly Azar started Azar Distiling in 2010 named after (kinda) their five children. ... Azar Distilling is in the process of expanding, not just the scope of the brands, but the distillery itself. Cinco Vodka and Seersucker Gin are now available at most major liquor stores throughout Texas, Ten-nessee, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island."
2. Rindfuss, Bryan (2011-04-06). "Fiesta's New Spirit". San Antonio Current. p. 38. ProQuest 865334215.
  The article notes: "Fiesta A-listers should plan on seeing (and/or drinking) locally distilled Cinco Vodka at some of the season's most exclusive celebrations- The King's Ball, The Queen's Ball, The Order of the Alamo Garden Party, and The Town Club Party among them. ... Other than the amber wheat (which is shipped to Texas from Idaho), Cinco owes its "clarity, cleanliness, and unsurpassed smoothness" to Texas and the Edwards Aquifer, water from which is naturally filtered through Cordova Cream limestone and further refined by reverse osmosis before being added to the spirit in the final stages of production."
3. "Azar Family Brands". San Antonio Express-News. 2017-03-23. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "That’s right — one of the country’s best and most-respected vodkas is distilled right here in San Antonio. It’s Cinco vodka, produced with non-GMO wheat, distilled in a hand-hammered copper still with no filtration. Founter Trey Azar maintains that a well-made vodka doesn’t need filtering."
4. Petty, Kathleen (2013-12-31). "Trey Azar: Founder of Cinco Vodka". San Antonio Magazine. Archived from the original on 2025-04-26. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "As many great ideas do, this one started with scribbling on a cocktail napkin. Four years later, Trey Azar and family’s Azar Distilling has earned a stellar reputation with Cinco Vodka. It was named a top 10 vodka at the 2013 New York Ultimate Beverage Challenge and awarded gold for best vodka (usually snagged by European brands) at the Los Angeles International Spirits Competition. Production since the distillery opened in 2011 has increased 10-fold with its four-person team (and some part-time help) now creating 10,000 cases a year that are sold throughout the state."
5. McInnis, Jennifer (2011-03-30). "San Antonio's Cinco Vodka poised to take on big boys". San Antonio Express-News. Archived from the original on 2011-04-02. Retrieved 2025-04-26.
  The article notes: "Packaged in an attractive bottle with five blue stars across the center, Cinco Vodka is produced at a distilling facility in Southeast Bexar County. ... Cinco Vodka is purchasing an automated bottling machine that can bottle versatile sizes and shapes, leaving the company's options open for other products it might develop in the future. There's also space in the facility to hold 12 tanks."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Azar Distilling and Cinco Vodka to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I question the reliability of the sources you mentioned; they aren't listed on the reliable/perennial sources list. Also, the articles themselves don't seem to be unbiased; they seem to be borderline puff pieces/human interest stories. Besides, see WP:SOLVE it is not my job to write an entire article to make something not be AfD. Let's examine the sources more closely, though. The first one is a mention in passing. The rest are human interest sources from local papers, which are not reliable (not mentioned in list, again.) Fails WP:RS, and subsequently no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The articles you're referencing also seem to be opinion pieces, which we have to attribute and be careful with when citing sources. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I consider these sources to all be reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "Only sources that have been repeatedly raised for discussion are listed here, it is not a general or comprehensive list of all generally reliable or unreliable sources in the world, it is a summarization of discussions about the listed sources." These sources are not listed there because they have not been repeatedly raised for discussion. The sources are all independent of the subject. That they contain positive commentary about the subject does not detract from their reliability. The Cider Mill Press book is a strong source that discusses Azar Distilling, the company that makes the Cinco Vodka brand. I recommend broadening the article to be about Azar Distilling as Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services says, "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product, depending on which is the primary topic." Cunard (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's examine this further. You mentioned this source in the San Antonio Magazine -- [47]. This is may be a reliable source, but the story in question is a human interest story, a profile about someone who started a distilling business. Good job, I'm sure he's a great guy. But still, WP:RS says: "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news). "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)."

Let's move on to the next one. You quoted this article -- [48]. It's in something called MYSA. Not the San Antonio Express News. Regardless, this article has a typo in it (founter), and is clearly written in a puffy tone. On first glance, MYSA looks like a small, local, low quality paper. From the MYSA website, they use AI to help write their articles. In addition to that, the article you linked is quite short, and again is written in a puffy tone. Some more on MYSA -- according to their own ethics policy, they leave it up to writers to do the fact checking.[49] Those are not signs of a reliable source.

Next one: again in MYSA, and not the San Antonio Express News; this is an article from 2011, a brief puff piece/human interest story. The site isn't reliable, and the article isn't reliable either.

Here's the big one -- everything but the book fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement. Azar Distilling is of interest to people living in San Antonio, a relatively niche audience. See Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a guide to distilleries in San Antonio. San Antonio is a fairly big city, but then again we don't make articles about every restaurant in New York City, even though you could probably find sources. I have more if this doesn't convince you. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by cunard which I believe are reliable Scooby453w (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable, as I outlined above. I didn't even mention the circular sourcing problem with AI, because AI is trained off of wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry but i dont agree with your assertion that you "proved them unreliable" which is why i voted keep Scooby453w (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope i didn't sound like i was trying to be rude 😅 its just my honest opinion Scooby453w (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. The sources are fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This discussion attracted no attention after the first day, but only the nominator supported deletion. While not expressly stated, the sense seems to be editing is a sufficient means to handle any problems. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luhansk Oblast campaign order of battle

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

This is an inappropriate content fork and fluffery (fluffing up something to give the appearance of much more substance than it actually has. It takes this version of units in the infobox at Luhansk Oblast campaign (six or less units on each side) and pads it out by using a tree structure - which is misleading if all of a formation is not supported as participating. It also uses MOS:FLAGCRUFT and is decorative rather than encyclopedic. Some of the structure is probably assumed from WP articles rather than being sourced Cinderella157 (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

^{This is an inappropriate content fork and fluffery (fluffing up something to give the appearance of much more substance than it actually has}

To be honest, I’m still unclear about what exactly constitutes 'inappropriate content,' but I don’t believe the term 'Fluffery' applies here. The Luhansk Oblast campaign spans approximately 130 km of frontline combat and is currently fragmented into three fronts (Kupyansk, Borova, and Lyman)[50]. If you think this page is purely 'Fluffery,' then you are mistaken

It takes this version of units in the infobox at Luhansk Oblast campaign (six or less units on each side) and pads it out by using a tree structure - which is misleading if all of a formation is not supported as participating.

I didn’t copy-paste from the old version you mentioned because the references there were too outdated (2022-2023). I also didn’t add units without checking. Like, you can see almost all my references are from November 2024 at the latest. If you don’t believe, go check the references one by one to see if those units were really involved.

It also uses MOS:FLAGCRUFT and is decorative rather than encyclopedic. Some of the structure is probably assumed from WP articles rather than being sourced

Also, I’m still confused why I violated MOS:FLAGCRUFT. If you could explain, I’d really appreciate it. Bukansatya (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that you’re using the term “inappropriate content fork” very loosely, as this article, simply put, is not inappropriate and serves a useful purpose. Like Bukansatya explained above, the campaign is across a 130km frontline across 3 main fronts. As it is already, these fronts have lots of units involved as all 3 fronts are focal points of Russian offensive operations.

As well as that, I think that your accusation of “fluffery” is being done in assuming bad faith. As I said, it is a large front with many, many units involved on both sides. There is nothing wrong with listing all of the involved units, as that is the entire purpose of an order of battle article; to list all of the involved units when the list is too large for a regular info box. On top of that, all of these units are cited directly from the ISW, which the article’s citations prove (I just checked the cited sources). And adding onto all of this, the article’s structure is completely fine as it is. It is a standard dot point list, with no “fluffery” and any extra details or anything of that nature to try and inflate the size.

This article also lies exactly in line with other order of battle articles (example: Pokrovsk offensive order of battle), effectively identical, with the only differences being the actual individual units and the locations. If you are going to nominate this article for deletion based on the reasons you provided, you should treat all other articles meeting the same standards equally. IiSmxyzXX (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Largest High School rivalries in Northwest Indiana

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

This page does not contain any references and obviously does not meet WP:N. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is copied and pasted from Duneland Athletic Conference. Can be speedy deleted under A10 ApexParagon (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete via A10 per ApexParagon - the same author also just created the similarly-named Biggest High School rivalries in NWI which will probably have to go through AfD too since it doesn't appear to be copyvio. Zzz plant (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Sports, Lists, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already been deleted. This AfD can be closed. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiki Pets

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

No reliable coverage per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) either on the page or across the web (wp before). Not notable company. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that whether or not this is actually notable OP is wrong... There are reliable sources, both on the page and across the web... Whether or not we should have a stand alone page or merge to General Mills or an associated page is still an open question and I would probably lean towards merge but the assertion that no reliable sources exist is patently false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back I only see across the web General Mills acquires Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 billion, General Mills to acquire Whitebridge Pet Brands for $1.45 bln and similar ones Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't see Tiki Pets in those articles? Because I do... And the sources appear reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reliable sources means reliable independent in-depth coverage. Passing mentions don't count Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources means reliable sources. If you mean independent in-depth coverage you have to say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! I changed the initial rationale for deletion. Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its still wrong, you need to add significant, in-depth, something like that before reliable. I don't think you understand that trivial and routine coverage can still be reliable, it just doesn't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only news articles are about it being purchased by General Mills. It isn't a significant enough part of GM to warrant a redirect to the article like the other non-notable brands that make up the General Mills portfolio. Moritoriko (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LD Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

To me this is a pretty clear WP:GNG fail. The sources cited are either self-published or not reliable, and I can find very little independent coverage of the subject. For example, the Forbes article cited in this article has the disclaimer "The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists" at the bottom. In addition, I suspect undisclosed paid editing because the article is somewhat promotional in tone and was created by a new user who has only ever edited in such a way to promote the article subject. Aspening (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and India. Aspening (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources include the subject's Instagram page, his LinkedIn profile, and his own YouTube channel. It reads like self-promotion. Fails WP:NPOV. As noted in the nom, the two Forbes articles I found are tagged as equivalent to advertising. Business Standard article is tagged as "Sponsored Content". — ERcheck (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly do let me know, what all can be removed to make the article relevant and not deleted. 2406:8800:80:DA33:30B3:2F4B:2AD3:4268 (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination clearly lays out the issues with the article. The following some of the issues that are being looked at in deletion discussion:

Conflict of Interest (COI): (You need to disclose if there is a COI. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest)

Do you have a relationship with the subject of the article and/or one of his companies?
Have you been paid to edit this article?

Notability: Next, if the subject of the article is not deemed to be notable by Wikipedia, you cannot "fix" that. Sharma must meet notability standards. See Wikipedia:Notability
Appropriate sources: See Wikipedia:Independent sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The subject's LinkedIn profile, Instagram, and YouTube channel are not independent sources.

— ERcheck (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, it fails WP:NPOV, there is WP:COI here, WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. To the creator- Kindly check all of the policies mentioned above before creating a new article. It might be useful for you maybe if you will be creating biography articles or improving others. Happy editing! HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to the page as per guidelines now, i hope it helps, if not feel free to let me know which areas are to be edited further Abhinavwiki124 (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks significant notable coverage which is independent and reliable, still Delete. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another WP:ADMASQ pertaining to search marketing. Falls woefully short of WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Yuvaank (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pabón

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Argentine footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blutonium Boy

AfDs for this article:

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

Blutonium is German DJ. The article was nominated for deletion in 2008 and kept based on this source, which seems notable but doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. The other sources I found are: [51], [52], [53]. This self-published book mentions him in a list of hardstyle djs. German Music Archive doesn't give anything. It feels notable but notable sources couldn't be found. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This album review, available via TWL, calls the subject a "biggie in the genre". One of his remixes got a positive review in Muzik. Appears to have an extensive discography as seen here. Tending to agree with the nominator, the subject "feels notable" but this still needs better sourcing to meet MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 18:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete: Possibly WP:TOOSOON? 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 22:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He started playing as a DJ in 1988" - if 2025 is too soon, there is no hope Geschichte (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep weak keep because it looks like he used to be significant back then. I found only mentions here either about his events or his songs.[54][55][56][57][][][58] this one wasn't opening on my device, just adding to check since preview showed a mention. I will add some more sources after thorough search. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitpur Mayor Women's Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: These are some coverage for the tournament [59][60][61].Godknowme1 (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per above. With the sources above mentioned, it indicate that there is coverage available about the subject. I'm leaning towards feeling that the article needs citations, not the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a recurring event having significant coverage and meeting basic reliability and verifiability, moderately passes WP:GNG. There are more sources available in local language too if someone can cross check. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARO-APOC3

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

ARO-APOC3, an RNAi treatment under investigation, is showing efficacy but is still in the experimental phase. At this point, it's too early to talk about this drug. Iban14mxl (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG 181.197.40.232 (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little to NO content. And per nomination reason Thegoofhere (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator was blocked as a sock. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huygens Software

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Search shows pages from company and pages describing how to use the software. Don't see any independent reliable sources discussing the software. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:19, 24 April 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 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Several sources – some [62][63] more reliable than others [64] – consider Huygens software to be significant within the field of microscopy. But the coverage itself isn't significant in the reliable sources, and I don't think a merge to either Deconvolution or Microscope image processing would be balanced, as Huygens software is only a minor aspect of the subject. Without a clear place to merge, my preference is to delete. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 00:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rinda (Ruby programming language)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Andre🚐 02:05, 22 April 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 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few reliable academic sources available, but only the primary sources go into depth about Rinda. It's a framework that allows Ruby to be run in parallel, and there isn't much more to say than that in an encyclopedic article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DrJava

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search of google scholar shows this IDE was (is?) commonly used in college instructional programs. Some articles compare its pedagogical value to much larger IDEs like eclipse. Google scholar even asked to correct Dr Java to drjava, so it seems its a fairly common term. Sourcing deserves a closer look, but as WP:NSOFT is an essay, not a guideline, I will invoke WP:PRESERVE here and suggest this be kept in the absence of accepted deletion rationale + the availability of academic sources for improvement. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Widely cited in textbooks from the early 2000s [65], should be enough for at least a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Suppliers Network

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Lack of independent, reliable sourcing. No evidence of significant impact. AndesExplorer (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Technology. AndesExplorer (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 18 April 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 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This was created by an IP in 2004. Sourcing fails notability. — Maile (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "About AAFPRS". aafprs.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.

[2] "American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery". abfprs.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.

[3] "Facial Plastic Surgery Fellowships". sfmatch.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.

[4] "Facial Plastic Surgery Fellowship Programs". aafprs.org. Retrieved April 28, 2025.

[5] Patel, Zara (2021). "Global Perspectives on Facial Plastic Surgery Education". Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine. 23 (1): 5–8. doi:10.1089/fpsam.2021.0050.

[6] Parnell, Wes (2020-11-29). "'What am I going to do at home?': After losing a leg in Queens shooting, amputee talks about road to recovery".

[7] Parnell, Wesley (2020-11-22). "'Just chaos': NYC paramedics, doctors, hospital staff overwhelmed by surge of shooting victims in 2020".

[8] "Agenda" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[9] Network, Medisys Health (2023-06-16). "Congratulations to the MediSys Health Network's CARE Award Recipients".

[10] "Fellowship Programs".

[11] "Dr. Moustafa Mourad on the BackTable ENT Podcast".

[12] ttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-gop-congressman-george-santos-sentenced-87-months-prison-federal-fraud-case.amp

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]