Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 17	April 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kobolediator

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

Subject fails GNG where no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources where the sources talk above the subject in length and depth for verification Cassiopeia talk 23:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 23:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of importance or any coverage whatsoever. No suitable redirect target as parent work is also not notable. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This is an unsourced page about a video game character, which gives us no allegations of notability. Borderline speedy. Bearian (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per others. No notability present in this at all. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:11, 19 April 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 [1][2][3].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]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What claims? How do you get around the fact that there isn't a single source in this list, and it's complete OR? Or that there's no sourcing to demonstrate this as some kind of notable grouping? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:ATD. Articles need WP:SIGCOV, and claims only go so far. In terms of navigation, links already exist at the main Flashpoint (comics) article, and we could even add them to the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list has no sources included that are not just the comics themselves, and none of the keep votes have offered a valid argument for how this passes WP:LISTN. Any notability for the Flashpoint (comics) series itself does not automatically extend to justify listing a multitude of minor characters that have no reliable sources that actually discuss them in any meaningful way. The few characters that were central to the plot of the comic are already described at the main article's plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a list, don't think meets WP:NLIST. And I see that many Categories exists around these characters, which is good enough for grouping. Asteramellus (talk) 19:55, 11 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]

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]

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]

Medica Hospitals

(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. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe some sources exist, given the scope of work and a big number of branches it has. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 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!} 23:37, 18 April 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: [4], [5], [6]. 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]

Singapore National Day Parade, 2017

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016, there is no individual notability of each parade. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 16:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 11 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!} 23:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore National Day Parade, 2018

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016, there is no individual notability of each parade. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 16:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 11 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!} 23:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Choa Kok Sui (Master)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choa Kok Sui * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this not fall in line with WP:G4? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because the prior AfD is very old, and the recent deletions are speedies for reasons that don't seem to apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR (or even [[[WP:NBIO]]). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree this page was previously deleted and salted. The preceding AFD is 18 years old. Since then, numerous independent references from credible sources have emerged regarding the subject. Consequently, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG.. Sore Shout (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject has potential for keeps one of which from the bibliographic achievements, the books being translated to numerous languages is notable, if a few more independent RS can be added aside from the numerous primary sources already cited, would increase its keep status potential.Villkomoses (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this attains NAUTHOR if the subject's claim to fame is Pranic healing, and that subject is itself non-notable. There is an unreferenced mention of pranic healing at Energy medicine#Beliefs; maybe one of the sources could be applied there prior to deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Villkomoses are you making a Keep argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~Keep~~ There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).

The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[7] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[8] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.

And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The newspaper coverage is primary...

I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct. Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:

"A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:

In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.

https://archive.is/CzIV8

Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence

Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/

The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's look at each of these:

The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. N
The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. N
The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. N

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.

It only requires a few things:

At least one step removed from an event
Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas

And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:

Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument

Do you have a different understanding of the word?

And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?

Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.

As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. N Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."

But there's also this qualification:
"For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."

I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
"Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news

So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
"This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'

By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.
Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.^[1]^: 69.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News reports are primary sources

Yes, some very academic-focused essays make this claim, but this is not wiki policy.

There's literally a WP:In the news section featured at the top of the homepage which is written based on news reports. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikipedia need to define what a secondary/primary source are? This is a real term and not something made up for the purpose of the project like WP:NOTABILITY. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is wikipedia policy. See WP:PRIMARY and especially note d. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [9] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would normally be a delete on articles like this, per WP:NOTNEWS if the coverage in WP:RS were limited to fleeting WP:PRIMARY. However, this shooting and its aftermath garnered significant WP:SIGCOV in a diverse array of WP:RS across the world meeting WP:DIVERSE ([10], [11], [12], there was continued coverage of subsequent developments in the case in international news wires and outlets in the months and years following the shooting meeting WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE ([13], [14], [15], [16]) WP:SIGCOV of the subsequent manhunt ([17]), WP:LASTING due to the shooting being part of events that predicated subsequent clashes that drew international coverage and analysis ([18], [19], [20]) and Israeli settlers named a outpost after the victim, which became a flashpoint in following years ([21], [22]), among other coverage. There are a lot of these incidents that don't satisfy WP:GNG. This isn't one of them. Longhornsg (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The manhunt, trial, and razing are all breaking news themselves. It's still pure news, just for aspects that happened years apart. "Part of events" is also carrying a lot of weight here since those sources aren't about this subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sirfurboy and my understanding of WP:PSTS. For events like this, being covered in the news is a given, but notability comes from multiple secondary sources – that's what makes an event significant enough to be in an encyclopedia. This doesn’t seem to meet that threshold. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS and all the convincing deletion arguments above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Easternsahara (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per EVENT, GNG and Longhornsg. gidonb (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and the effects on American adolescents

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

Not even trying to be anything other than an essay. The sources are high-quality (even if already dated), but it flunks WP:FORUM criterion 1 and WP:SOAPBOX. Patrick (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - An article on this topic seems useful, and as noted above, it's well sourced(if dated). But structuring this into something article-worthy seems like it would effectively require rewriting it from the ground up.
Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my delete and changing to Draft per Oaktree b. The sources that are currently there could be useful for a rewritten article and should be preserved.Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 18:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Social science, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is just an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Although an article on this topic would be useful, it needs to be rewritten substantially, and so the best thing is just to delete it. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: might want to !draft it, it has good sources but oh boy does it need updating. I'm sure this is still an issue with the adolescents of today. Perhaps rewrite so it's worldwide, not just in the USA though. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:TNT applies. Created almost 10 years ago and this would require a rewrite for today. – The Grid (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone steps up to rewrite the article, I'll happily withdraw my nomination for deletion. Based on the edit histories of the major contributors, however, I'm not sure where we could draftify it and expect to get anything back. Patrick (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been through 1 rewrite in 2018. Witness Special:Permalink/852239206 and Special:Diff/852467366. It grew from that, via multiple WikiEd course assignments listed on the talk page, back to the same size as before. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If draft isn't an option, I'm ok with a !delete. I wouldn't want to rewrite it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; also, is a page with this niche of a topic necessary, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE? I get that in all likelihood, American adolescents are probably the most studied when it comes to social media case studies, but could this page not theoretically be merged onto a page on social media addiction in general? Or a one on teenagers in general? Unless there's something funky specifically targetting American adolsecents, I really think the scope should be broader. jolielover♥talk 20:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems arbitrary to only focus on Americans when it comes to such broad claims about general use, and either way the page reads like a soapbox with stances for and against social media. I'm surprised this didn't focus on just positive or just negative claims, which would've led to WP:POV problems. Not seeing a feasible way to rewrite the page as it does read like an essay. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see both sides. There has been tons of research on the topic, but the article (essay?) as written has a lot of issues. But it could be rescued with some work. I've spent the weekend trying to rescue a different article, which by my count is about # 211 or so that I've rescued, and got an angry email from a young man offended and complaining about the tone of one of my edit summaries. I can't even. So if you want to rescue this, it's your turn. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per the previous comments. The topic is interesting and supported by reliable sources, even if they are dated. I'm sure more up-to-date research could be added. The scope should probably be expanded to include all adolescents as well, instead of limiting it to Americans. But if that is not a popular option then my second choice would be to delete it. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:39, 14 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]

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]

Tongbi the Sculptor

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

No indication of notability, in fact, the mod "Mowzie's Mobs" from which it is a character doesn't appear to be notable either. A quick WP:BEFORE shows absolutely nothing secondary for this character, besides (clearly not RS) YouTube videos like this one. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scaife Foundations

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

Sufficiently lacks WP:SIGCOV altogether despite current grouping structure. Notability is not inherited from founders who do receive some local press coverage for interfamilial litigation over estates that mentions subject(s) in passing. All else is WP:ROUTINE for philanthropic organizations. SunnyLetO (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Keep initially !voted for a delete, and still feel this only comes to a weak keep, but some of the more critical coverage does in fact help to establish notability. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the media coverage is not significant, with short occasional indirect mentions. --Cinder painter (talk) 09:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure a proper WP:BEFORE was done here since the subject plainly passes WP:NORG. Beyond the SIGCOV already in the article ([23], [24], [25], [26]), there's independent WP:SIGCOV of these interconnected foundations in Jane Mayer's Dark Money, Kathleen Buechel's A Gift of Belief, Anne Southworth's Lawyers of the Right, and the reference work American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia. Because sources cover these as interconnected, it makes sense to cover them as a single article rather than separately. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, could use a bit more consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Valley Gymnastics Academy

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG, which requires coverage from independent sources which "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Every source is a passing mention. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 11 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!} 23:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The current sources are not admissible towards meeting WP:GNG, and upon searching up the subject, it doesn't seem like the subject is notable.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 19 April 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 [27] [28] [29] 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 [30]. The SCMP source is probably better [31] (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]

Come Closer (album)

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

Debut album that fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any sources about it other than profiles. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 11 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]

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]

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]

Mungo McKay

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, which requires that "the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." McKay played one of the leads in the low-budget film Undead, but his other roles have been rather minor. Chrisahn (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chrisahn (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough sources for a stub Wikipedia article. Eric Carpenter (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Undead (film). I have not found any significant coverage of him, so he does not meet WP:GNG (or even WP:NBASIC). He appears to have had a significant role in only one film, Undead - his roles in Daybreakers and Rippy seem to be minor, and he doesn't seem to be mentioned in reviews of them. He did have a leading role in Undead, though, and is mentioned in many reviews, so redirecting could be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:33, 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!} 23:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGOGO

AfDs for this article:

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

Original 2008 argument for keeping this article was based upon the fact they released two albums on major labels. They released albums on Innova Records and III Records, but III Records has notability issues itself, so I don’t see how it can upholster another article.

Also, there are few sources I can find. Google came back with All About Jazz, but that’s a database. They had one passing mention in a book from 2000. Otherwise, I’d say they’re unnotable. Roasted (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further research: I don't believe it should’ve been kept the first time. The argument was that they released an album under a major label (Innova Recordings). The article itself doesn’t source that fact. The only place on the internet I could find stating such a fact was on Discogs.com. Also, Innova's website doesn’t know of an Ogogo.

Lugnuts argued that they released on two notable labels, but I couldn’t find sources for III Records, and placed a PROD tag accordingly. It should also be noted that Armatist participated in the deletion discussion. Armatist was the creator of the Ogogo and III Records article. Roasted (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, their website mentions Ogogo. Roasted (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this one just screams Wikipedia:Delete the junk, it's a nothing-burger from the early days of Wikipedia and lacks any notable coverage. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 08:54, 13 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 a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search AI Overviews

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

Doesn’t expand on content already covered in the google search article and mostly unnecessary content ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's content in this article that isn't covered in Google Search, such as the lawsuit from Chegg, Google implementing link placement prioritization measures, and info about the AI's functionality (though that section isn't sourced). Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article's name was moved to AI Overviews by InfiniteNexus. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be to market a feature Usgy928 (talk 14:04, 15 April 2025 (GMT)
Keep: I think the base google search page is getting bloated and there is reason to have a separate page. Perhaps though the page should be something like AI in Google Search or something like that so it can include the AI Mode as well. There doesn't seem to be any issue from about its notability to be on Wikipedia, just where this information should be located. Moritoriko (talk) 00:35, 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!} 23:23, 18 April 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]

Rob Fusari

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:INDEPENDENT.

Per WP:INVALIDBIO, this article hangs onto relevance through the subject's passing involvement with notable figures. The subject is not independently notable, and certainly not one worthy of a stand-alone article.

The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial information about Fusari’s career and contributions. The majority of available sources focus predominantly on his association with Lady Gaga, particularly their professional collaborations and subsequent legal disputes. This reliance on coverage tied to another individual’s notability does not satisfy the criteria for a standalone article. Without independent and in-depth coverage, the subject does not meet the necessary standards for notability on Wikipedia. Brickto (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I mostly agree and wouldn't mind a Merge with Lady Gaga (if she doesn't already have this dispute info with Fusari). Searching only Google News, I found two articles somewhat independent from Lady Gaga this Billboard article/interview touching on both the dispute and his career prior. Also review journal published a mini pieace in 2017, somewhat independent from the disputes with Gaga. He produced one Will Smith song, and is a member of a band that doesn't have a wiki page. Maybe if we can find another independent source with SIGCOV, like review journal, the article can be safely saved. LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse

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

Fails WP:GNG. Citations show no significant coverage of this defunct website. Reliable sources sometimes use the site's data: "According to the College Football Data Warehouse...". But I cannot find any sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of the website itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was one of the largest and most reliable sources of statistical information on the history of college football (and it remains accessible through the Internet Archives). Major news outlets long relied on it as a "go to" source for historical information on the sport. E.g., Chicago Tribune (reviewing CFDW's findings on the use of interim head coaches), The Montgomery Advertiser (dscussing CFDW's use of the National Championship Foundation to reconstruct history and choose national champions); The New York Times, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Vancouver Sun, The Orlando Sentinel. As set forth in the article, CFDW has also been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals. Further, a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable sources confirmed: "Not only has this website has proven time and again to be a reliable source of information, but it is maintained by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field." Given how widely cited the database is, it would do a disservice to Wikipedia to delete the information that has been developed about its background, its creators, and its unfortunate demise. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 April 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]

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]

Javier Mandaluniz

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG John B123 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. John B123 (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish article has much more content and 20 sources that should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per es:Javier Mandaluniz, did you even bother to look at the Spanish wiki? Govvy (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SL93 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Fish, Two Fish, Crawfish, Bluefish

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

Non-notable book. No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Literature. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and zero citations. Edit: Sources have now been added

Thegoofhere (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources that zzz plant added took care of my issue. SL93 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added some sources and expanded the article a bit- I believe it passes WP:NBOOK C1. Zzz plant (talk) 22:15, 18 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.

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]

TVX 40+

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

No significant coverage. Also, the first reference is a now deleted press release, and the second reference is a press release. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - I think it's better suited as either an expansion onto the Television X or Red Hot TV pages due to a lack of sources. Luigitehplumber (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asei Nakahara

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

Contested PROD, fails GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CURLING. Has played in the World championships and has medalled at the Youth Olympics. I'm sure there must be some reliable sources in Japanese that can be found.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found these in Japanese [32], [33], [34] but I'm not sure if they would constitute significant coverage although the third article is purely about him. Also it should be noted that he was only the reserve at the Worlds. Not voting at this stage, just putting out what I could find to hopefully aide the discussion. Shrug02 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhannad Awadh

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:ATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 18 April 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]

Christian Gessner

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

Non-notable swimmer. No sources beyond profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No evidence of WP:BEFORE. A search brings up SIGCOV such as this, paywalled stories that are almost certainly SIGCOV such as this, and it is very, very likely that a world championship swimming medalist in the offline era will have further coverage in German newspaper archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini (footballer)

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

A player who represented the India women's national under-17 football team, but who otherwise did not achieve any major feats. Given the sport's lack of repercussion in the country, I believe that she fails in WP:GNG, or at least it is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Women, and India. Svartner (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I strongly feel that the BLP passes Notability as per WP:GNG. The caveat at the general notability guideline, that an individual is presumed to be notable "if they have been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", has been fulfilled in this case. Nandini has received in depth coverage in at at least three articles from reliable, independent and secondary sources. Also coverage on her has been substantial from 2022 and has been at regular intervals till 2025. She is in the main Indian team camp now, but the BLP does not fall under WP:TOOSOON as she already gained wide coverage that passes GNG, even as a junior player. Most of the coverage is more than ‘Trivial’. Will also try and add more reliable sources. Davidindia (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spellbound Pictures

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

Fails WP:ORG. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony T. Roberts

AfDs for this article:

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

Longstanding unsourced BLP. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Michigan. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This Article does not meets it's notability for mainspace and does not maintain reliable sources. Also it's has now 2nd nomination for Wikipedia:Article for deletion, therefore it should be deleted. Thanks KayVegas (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is my first time in a discussion like this so I'm not too sure how this all works but I concur with deleting this article there are only 2 sources one of which is the subjects own website which isn't reliable and a idmb page which just lists credits. speaking of which the credits themselves don't confer notability either as they appear to be mostly minor roles. Scooby453w (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on a side note I looked at the previous afd which resulted in keep however it seems to have been solely based on the fact that he had an idmb page which I disagree with as I stated above Scooby453w (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr. Box Office#Main Cast: but if existing sources seem OK for GNG, not fiercely opposed to Keep (a lot of coverage like https://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140723/tony-roberts-brings-an-army-of-jokes-to-the-forum-for-komedy-xxplosion/ or https://www.royalgazette.com/other/lifestyle/article/20150402/comedians-will-have-you-in-stitches/ exists). (Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR as the other roles are minor or in not clearly notable productions) -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i could get behind a redirect Scooby453w (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:BLP. I'm ok with a redirect, but only conditional on finding at least one reliable source. Bearian (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pardeshi

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Nothing found to support notability found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability and significant coverage from reliable sources. Could not find independent sources or reviews to support the notability of the film. The two sources used in the article (the references tab indicates there are three, but the first two links are identical) are both YouTube videos from the same YouTube channel as well. Also could not find evidence that this movie was "one of the top 10 movies of that year" as claimed in the article.

death pact (again) 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ahmed (businessman)

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

the sources are dependent and only one has something similar to deep coverage, but the sources itself is not reliable and independent (this one Ethiopian birthday) other are WP:Trades and nothing similar to significant coverage OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual is known for the success of Africa's largest airlines. According to Fana Broadcasting Corporate "The late Captain Mohammed Ahmed, a pioneering force in the aviation industry and a cherished leader of Ethiopian Airlines" [35]Magherbin (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, lacking significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. If it relies on promotional content or self-published material, it would also fail to meet the site's neutrality and sourcing guidelines.--Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truss (Unix)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VSdocman

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allocation site

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 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]

Xsnow

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VRR (program)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inclined to agree that this fails WP:NSOFT. The fact it doesn't seem to have been updated in over 15 years is one thing, but the very limited coverage even during it's active time doesn't come close to WP:SIGCOV. The closest thing I see to independent coverage is here, yet it's just a brief review of the software among various others too. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my own search for refs came up empty. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathankot Campaign

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

Article describes a 1775 clash between Sikh Misls but fails to show its a distinct, notable event beyond skirmishes already covered in articles like Kanhaiya Misl, Bhangi Misl, or Sikh Confederacy. "Pathankot Campaign" isn’t a recognized term in historical scholarship, also WP:RS don’t treat it as a standalone event separate from typical inter-Misl strife. It leans on a narrow set of sources, like Gandhi (1999) and Gupta (1939), lack the mainstream weight or specificity to confirm details. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Pakistan and Punjab. NXcrypto Message 10:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sikhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The so-called "Pathankot Campaign" is itself made up. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yet another revenge nomination, [36][37][38] lol. Just take all of my articles for deletion. Not to mention the nominator has used AI to write this frivolous rationale. Like they don't even bother to go through Pathankot Campaign#References. Check these sources: (2 pages), (2 pages). Heraklios 16:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, this is kinda funny to me, few days back, some dude was all over me for grammar slip-ups, and now this! Anyway, seems like you’re pretty worked up and running low on solid points. I did my WP:BEFORE check before tossing this article up for deletion. Check it yourself: Google Books (nothing relevant), Google Scholar (nothing), normal search (nothing), News articles(empty too). Looks to me like its got zero notability in mainstream sources. NXcrypto Message 20:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve never even crossed paths with you, so don’t go saying this is some revenge nomination, that's nonsense. NXcrypto Message 20:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re pointing to these Internet Archive links like they’re gold:[39] and [40], but let’s be real, its just Hari Ram Gupta again, and that’s a shaky leg to stand on. Gupta’s stuff, like from 1939/1944 or whenever, isn’t some mainstream heavyweight and doesn’t prove “Pathankot Campaign” is a legit standalone thing. I dug through WP:BEFORE, Google Books, Scholar, news, nothing calls this a distinct event. You wanna keep it? Show me something solid, some mainstream scholar references, not just Gupta’s dusty WP:RAJ work. NXcrypto Message 20:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's real bold to talk like this after someone has already accused you of using AI to format the deletion rationale. -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only the subject fails GNG but the article is seemingly pushing ethnic POV. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't it just be rewritten if the tone is biased? - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; there seems to be some significant and reliable coverage from scholars, historians, etc. The article looks a little biased, and there are some strong words like "enraged", but a rewrite can fix that - OpalYosutebito 『talk』『articles I want to eat』 20:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to cite the sources you believe have provided enough coverage. I don't see any scholarly sources that have. NXcrypto Message 07:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. Cannot be termed as anything more than an original research, as such, the subject entirely fails WP:GNG. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom is confused, the event has established notability with the name of "The Battle of Pathankot, 1775" and has a decent full page of coverage. Shakakarta (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That skirmish is not notable. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 04:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How? The battle is covered by a renowned historian which obviously has coverage. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. The article fails WP:GNG and there is no significant coverage in the sources. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 04:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are repeated non persuasive arguments, it can be seen that the sources establish notability. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Those who want to keep the article haven't addressed any of the concerns. Significant coverage does not exist in sources, none of the sources call it by this name either. Totally unwarranted article. CharlesWain (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An unbiased source analysis would be far more useful than accusations of "revenge" or AI use.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OJ (programming tool)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:21, 18 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]

OWBasic

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of BASIC dialects. ApexParagon (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EasyBeans

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epydoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EAccelerator

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ELMAH

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ddoc

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Ruby

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:39, 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]

CoffeeCup HTML Editor

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:38, 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]
Procedural keep Why does it fail that, @Clenpr:? If you don't expand any of these reasonings in your own words I will be NAC closing this group of nominations with the next couple days because I'm tired of these nominations you and others put forward where those voting are supposed to figure out why outside a WP: cite you're seeking deletion. And this is one of the more well-known consumer HTML editors; it will need sources but I'm not deleting without more information from you. Nathannah • 📮 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this subject is notable but I’m ok with the nomination’s terseness. If the subject is non-notable, what else would you say? “I looked and looked but found no refs” - that doesn’t add anything more. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google Scholar indicates there are sources out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference? Do you have references for all the page content? Clenpr (talk) 06:48, 19 April 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]

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]

FileMan

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:31, 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]

Guy Schwartz

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

Lack of any notability whatsoever - prior print sources were bogus and unverifiable. Biased and POV statements littered throughout the article and the subject has flaunted said article on social media (facebook) many times. Large chunk of contributions to the article are from suspicious anonymous IP addresses that have only edited that page, as well as Guy Schwartz's own wikipedia account. Subject has not established notability and this page should be deleted. Brandonac4473 (talk) 09:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, Journalism, Television, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the article is unsourced, so that's of no help. I don't find anything for sourcing. Could be notable, but the lack of any kind of sourcing isn't helpful. Could be a hoax or an LLM article for all I know. Could likely speedy this. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the nominator the ip who removed the references which are shown here on the basis that they were bogus such as the Houston Press?. However, I did find this piece in the Houston Press here so maybe they weren't as bogus as is claimed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also found these other Houston Press articles about him here, here,here, here, here, and here. Going by this evidence the other references removed such as Billboard may be genuine as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, yes I am the user who called the Houston press in an attempt to independently verify the articles he cited on his own wikipedia page - none of those print articles existed according to them.

Your first link to houston press is talking about MARTY schwartz, not Guy Schwartz - Marty is a youtuber with infinitely more notoriety.

Of the rest of the articles you linked, guy schwartz is the main subject of only TWO of those articles - and not to mention, they are all by the same publication. Which per WP:GNG - "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

The only cited source within the entire article that I could find that had any direct ties to guy schwartz was yet another Houston Press article from 2007 entitled "South By Due East↵Racket heads for Austin as Guy Schwartz and M. Martin bicker over the history of a local festival" and it was incorrectly cited for a statement that claimed they have been running said festival since 2003 - which the article mentions nowhere. Thus why I pulled it from the article.

Perhaps Guy Schwartz could write a new wikipedia page about himself with info from those two articles that he is the subject of, appropriately citing things that are within those articles for the information therein. But the article as it stands is a plethora of wild unsupported claims - such as claims of a 2016 presidential campaign that are based in nothing but fantasy. Claiming he toured with Duran Duran, Todd Rundgren and Huey Lewis.

If Guy Schwartz was truly notable, then one would think he would manage more than a couple articles in Houston Press about his band. Brandonac4473 (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Billboard references I confirmed were bogus through online archives of those issues he claimed he was in.

It also doesnt change the fact that none of those articles you linked were cited within the page. Had they been, this may have been a different story. Albeit the issue still stands: Per WP:GNG "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Brandonac4473 (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I've removed the Marty Schwartz reference. Agree more sources are required, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree more sources are required for notability, then please consider changing your recommendation to delete. Brandonac4473 (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly remove the bold in your request as it might be considered a !vote and it is assumed that nominators are generally in favour of deletion and cannot !vote. ◇Not sure it is appropriate to ask a voter to change their suggestion the way you did, but maybe that’s not an issue. -Mushy Yank. 18:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - unbolded that word.

They can obviously do whatever they want, but I figured asking them to reconsider their vote would be appropriate considering that they now agree with the basis of my issue with the article to begin with - that more sources are needed. Brandonac4473 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet fully convinced that additional sources do not exist so am sticking with my keep vote pending further evidence, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Chronicle has bits of coverage about him; including this presenting him as "an icon of the Houston scene". -Mushy Yank. 00:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(and same media: https://www.chron.com/entertainment/music/article/guy-schwartz-new-jack-hippies-1979508.php (based on an interview)+ or this (short/similar to first and with similar appraisal, "a Houston institution"); this interview at Rag Radio (with an extensive presentation) (see WP:INTERVIEWS, an essay) can serve is this is kept to expand and verify. So that imv, he might meet one or two of the inclusion criteria as defined in the guideline about WP:Notability (music), namely:

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"

(excludes interviews) and/or, more likely:

"Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city"

Houston is a city. GS, at 73, seems to be listed among the most prominent Americana musicians of its local scene. Ergo (weak) keep? If kept, the article, currently tag-bombed, should be cleaned up. -Mushy Yank. 00:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these articles you linked support the plethora of claims made throughout the article?

This is why my attempts to verify them were so exhaustive. There are no credible sources for him having ran a 2016 presidential campaign, no credible sources for having toured with Duran Duran or Huey Lewis.

He might've passed WP:GNG if those articles were properly cited within the article but they weren't cited at all.

And Houston Chronicle calling his band an "icon" is a stretch particularly when their latest "music video" has 48 views on youtube. link

Houston Chronicle is open for business btw for paid promotions. Brandonac4473 (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if notability is established, WP:NDELETE still says a wikipedia article must cite sources for whatever information it presents - regardless of notability.

The entirety of the article is filled with unverifiable claims. He still doesn't pass WP:GNG in my opinion but the criteria to delete the page has absolutely been met per WP:NDELETE even if he is truly notable. Brandonac4473 (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it, then and remove everything you think is inappropriate (please do not WP:BLANK the page, though). As for the idea that a page about a "truly notable subject" should (or even could) be deleted because the page has no sources cited, although sources exist (and in the case of an/this AfD, especially if sources are presented!!!!), I am very sorry, but: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Just read Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_based_on_the_existence_of_suitable_sources,_not_on_the_state_of_sourcing_in_an_article, which is a WP:guideline. "WP:NDELETE" is an essay (="the advice or opinions of one [..] Wikipedia contributor[s]", not a policy or guideline). You are totally free to cite it and it is not a problem, but it has little, if any, weight as an argument to delete a page. (I completely disagree with that essay, personally, and find it is full of wild and reckless assertions). Also, articles that do not pass WP:GNG but meet a given WP:SNG may be kept, depending on the case. Best, -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so you disagree with WP:NDELETE, thats fine.

Do you think Guy Schwartz meets WP:SIGCOV?

A brief mention in a list of other houston musicians seems like a trivial mention. Brandonac4473 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:N. The phoney 2016 presidential campaign with no citations to back it up says everything to me. Nominator appears to have tried to independently verify the print articles thoroughly. My own searching of “Guy Schwartz” on the internet doesnt produce much either, except for his wiki page. Non-notable. Brenae wafato (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found this here about his supposed 2016 Presidential bid but he doesn't seem to have made the ballot according to official records, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

so this guy connected with me on a site called ome.tv and one of the first things he told me to do was check his wikipedia page, trying to tell me he was famous. i googled him and literally this was the only thing i found on him. given that... seems like he shouldnt have a wikipedia page LOL. he has no followers or coverage anywhere else.

i saw the notification at the top of his article inviting me to leave an opinion..

so i'd say delete but i also dont know how wikipedia works. but this guy is not famous or notable and definitely shouldnt have a wikipedia page if he just goes around telling random people to check it out and has no real coverage anywhere else lmao. 24.27.40.108 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mentioned how he flaunts his wikipedia article on his facebook page, its clear he uses the article as a trophy - so this doesnt surprise me that he is telling strangers on the internet to go check it out. Brandonac4473 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this guy did the same thing to me!!! he was all bragging about being famous and having a wikipedia page and i was like “dude… theres a thing right there that says your page is about to get deleted” and he was like “WHAT?!?” and disconnected 😂😂 70.113.49.149 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input from other experienced editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like an easier call than indicated by some of the discussion here. Fails GNG and RS criterion and should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet it does seem more complicated than that, because there are reliable sources and he might meet the specific guideline for musicians. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None were in the article. The only one was incorrectly cited. He surely doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. His band releasing an album in an article with 20 other bands is a trivial mention. Him flaunting the wikipedia article on social media and apparently telling strangers about it on chat sites is a major red flag that he isnt notable. Brandonac4473 (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Mushy Yank has noted, notability does not depend on the sourcing in the article, but on whether sourcing exists. In this case, looking for reviews of his albums seems like a useful thing to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete absolutely this guy is not famous or notable AT ALL. he pulled the same thing with me on ome.tv that the person above mentioned. bro is literally going around the internet showing off his wikipedia page yet he doesnt know its about to get deleted??? 😂 ive met famous people and they NEVER bring up their wiki page to brag about it lmao. yet that is apparently all this guy does. 70.113.49.149 (talk) 04:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper (software)

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QSvn

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not to be confused with “Quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic soft sets”, sometimes abbreviated “QSVN”. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective

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

Nothing much on the page to suggest the notability criteria have been met and I'm not finding much else to consider. WP:NJOURNAL is an essay and a bit opaque but I'm not seeing anything there that this journal unambiguously fits for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add: the editor that worked on this page also worked on a number of other journals from the same publisher. Which seems a bit suspicious (of COI editing) given they didn't seem to do anything else in their editing history. JMWt (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journal is indexed and fairly well-ranked in SCOPUS. Keep per WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Nobody (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The journal is listed in Clarivate and Scopus. According to the Journal Citation Reports, it has a ranking of 136 out of 304 in the category of Business and 177 out of 407 in the category of Management.[41] Hence, it is not an insignificant journal and can pass WP:GNG. Nanosci (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether Scopus is sufficient for notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 11:36, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My question is about the above (assuming that the numbers are correct); so there are more than 300 business journals and 400 management journals in the system. Are we saying all 300 business and 400 management journals are notable? Or the best 10%? Or some number? For me, I don't think anything outside of the top 25% of anything can be considered "the best" or "the most notable" in common language. JMWt (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There exist thousands of business journals, being one of the few hundred that gets indexed in WOS makes it likely notable. Nobody (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ESCI and Scopus indexing meets NJournals. Nobody (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have zero significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The criteria listed in NJOURNAL are convenient, but are not supported by a broader community consensus, so I don't think it's right to see them as overriding the GNG in a case like this. At the very least, WP:NOTDATABASE should apply. I think this should be redirected to Sage Publishing or Management Development Institute. Toadspike [Talk] 14:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus is all of significant, independant and reliable. Same for JCR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Toadspike, your comment reads like an unbolded Redirect. Can you please clarify your view on a potential target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OwenX Thank you for relisting. Yes, I think this article should be redirected and I listed two potential targets in my comment. I have now bolded the word "redirect" to make this clearer. However, my main concern is the noting the questionable reasoning of NJOURNALS and discussing whether this article should exist, not pushing for a specific outcome/ATD – I suppose I'd also be fine with a merge or delete. Toadspike [Talk] 18:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although we generally don't consider ESCI as sufficiently selective as required by NJournals (and inclusion in JCR in this case therefore is of only minor importance), inclusion in Scopus is generally considered to indicate notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Softune

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StatCVS

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Tourism Day (India)

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

Yet another made-up marketing observance. The only sources here are low-quality SEO-driven churnalism, most of it in unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA articles. My WP:BEFORE search found more of the same, plus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE from India's tourism ministry that appears to be the basis of many of the spam articles on this observance. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Travel and tourism, and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to see a mention of the national tourism office officially acknowledging this day and think mention would be appropriate in Tourism in India or Ministry of Tourism (India) (and especially as to why this date in particular, which none of these sources elaborate on outside 'the government approved'). However none of these articles make clear why January 25 is the date of celebration and all repeat the same PR. Nathannah • 📮 00:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did manage to find a press release explaining the day's origination, and added mention to Ministry of Tourism (India)#Campaigns. Still would like to add more meat though, certainly. Nathannah • 📮 00:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a made up holiday. Having one single government source is almost as bad as none: it becomes original research. Bearian (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy Flashboards

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rediect to Remedy Corp. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide at least a valid reference so we can keep it in the referenced page? Clenpr (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thapaswini Poonacha

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4. Non-notable actress. This version of the article is drastically different from the previous version which was deleted in 2022. Although it's still in very poor shape, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. Fails WP:NACTOR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Food and drink, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AfD Discussion: Thapaswini Poonacha

I oppose the deletion of this article on the grounds that Thapaswini Poonacha meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for actors (WP:NACTOR) and has received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

1. Notability as an Actress

Thapaswini Poonacha has been featured in multiple Kannada films, including:

Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Available on JioCinema

Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming release on February 7, 2025

Mr. Jack – Upcoming, co-starring Guru Nandan

Rukmini Vasantha – Upcoming, co-starring Shree Mahadev

She has received media attention for her performances and won the Chittara Promising Star Award, which is a notable recognition in the Kannada film industry.

2. Significant Media Coverage

Multiple independent and reliable sources have covered her career and achievements, demonstrating significant coverage beyond passing mentions:

Times of India:

"I do my research before signing a film"

"Not about numbers, want to do memorable movies"

"Roles have to make my soul happy"

The New Indian Express:

"I have no interest in chasing attention"

Kannada Prabha:

"Thapaswini Poonacha: I have no interest in chasing attention"

Hindustan Times Kannada:

"Thapaswini Poonacha in Christmas photoshoot"

These sources demonstrate that Thapaswini Poonacha is consistently covered in reputable media, indicating her notability as an actress and public figure.

3. Business and Coffee Industry Recognition

In addition to her acting career, she is a certified coffee cup tester and runs a coffee business in Coorg. This has been discussed in interviews and media coverage, adding to her notability beyond acting.

4. Conclusion

Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTOR by virtue of:

✅ Multiple roles in notable Kannada films

✅ Award recognition (Chittara Promising Star Award)

✅ Significant, independent media coverage

✅ Additional recognition in the coffee industry

Given the multiple reliable sources and her growing career in Kannada cinema, deletion is not justified. If improvements are needed, I encourage a rewrite instead of deletion. Akashmdp (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Agree on multiple roles in notable Kannada films, which is enough for a standalone page, but would you happen to have a source for the award, by any chance? -Mushy Yank. 17:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seen the Youtube video. Added it. A better source might be needed for that, but as notability does not depend on that point (but on her 2 roles), not urgent. Advising you no to repeat the same things nor add long walls of text here or on the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask AI to ask if the article should be deleted or not? That might explain why Kannada industry became coffee industry. DareshMohan (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 2 significant roles in (2) notable films (the second has no page yet but at least 3 bylined reviews [see page]) have her meet the requirements for WP:NACTRESS. I have cleaned up the page. -Mushy Yank. 17:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thapaswini Poonacha meets WP:NACTRESS by having significant roles in two notable films:

Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – Recognized and covered in mainstream Kannada media.

Gajarama (2025) – While the film does not yet have its own Wikipedia page, it has received at least three bylined reviews from reliable sources.

Additionally, she has been profiled in multiple independent, reliable sources, including:

Times of India (article)

New Indian Express (article)

Kannada Prabha (article)

Hindustan Times Kannada (article)

Her acting career and coffee business have been independently covered, reinforcing her notability beyond just press releases or promotional content. The page has been cleaned up to meet Wikipedia’s neutrality and sourcing guidelines.

Thus, per WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
The Kannada Prabha piece is more interview. The Vinay Lokesh piece is also interview. These aren't nearly enough, IMHO. I don't see a single presented source which isn't routine entertainment news, mostly quotes. No direct detailing at all. To Akashmdp, repeating your bullet points over and over doesn't make your argument any stronger. You may be convinced, but you need to convince the other editors in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User:Akashmdp is the page creator AND a paid contributor to this page. As for the sources already applied on the page, cite #2 (Asianet Suvarna News) admits it's a Kannada translation of The Times of India link (cite #1). Both consist entirely of identical quotes from the subject. Interviews do not count towards GNG. The two movie reviews are both (parenthetical) bare mentions, but do confirm the single role. Cite #5 is also an interview with a few bits of routine industry news. The photoshoot linked above is five pics of her in same outfit next to quotes from the actress. If this is all an avowed digital marketing professional with 7+ years of experience in the industry can bring, it's not very impressive to me. BusterD (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For full disclosure, I was the administrator who declined the speedy deletion tag earlier. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – Meets WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG.
I would like to address the concerns raised by User:BusterD regarding notability and sources.
Significant Roles in Multiple Notable Films
Hari Kathe Alla Giri Kathe (2022) – A commercially released Kannada film with media coverage.

Gajarama (2025) – Upcoming film, already receiving pre-release coverage.

Mr. Jack & Rukmini Vasantha – Both announced, with media mentions. Under WP:NACTRESS, an actor needs two significant roles in notable films, which she meets.

Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources
Times of India: Multiple interviews and feature stories.

New Indian Express: Independent reporting on her career.

Hindustan Times (Kannada): Coverage of her work.

Kannada Prabha: Career analysis and industry perspectives. Response to the Source Criticism:

The Times of India article is a primary source, but it is still independent and features her career insights.

The Asianet Suvarna News article may translate TOI but does not invalidate other sources.

Movie reviews confirm her roles, fulfilling minimum WP:NACTRESS requirements.

The New Indian Express piece is not just an interview; it provides analysis of her trajectory.

Photoshoot coverage, while not the strongest evidence, still indicates media attention.

Regarding Paid Editing Allegations
While User:Akashmdp may have created the page, the subject’s notability stands independently.

Wikipedia has a system for COI disclosures, but that does not automatically invalidate an article’s merits.

Even if a paid editor initiated the page, the subject’s career must be evaluated separately from who added the content.

Conclusion
Thapaswini Poonacha meets both WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS based on her coverage and career milestones.

The article has been cleaned up to remove promotional tone and improve sourcing.

If further citations or refinements are needed, that can be worked on, but outright deletion is unnecessary.
Thus, the article should be kept. Akashmdp (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Now you're screaming. You have made your argument. Let others speak. Mushy Yank can be helpful here. Consult with them. BusterD (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTRESS. Multiple significant roles in notable movies and multiple significant coverage in WP:RS, both are available. Zuck28 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As per above discussion and my search on the subject find this: [42], [43], [44] B-Factor (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~

Thank you, B-Factor, for your input. The references you provided—Times of India, Cinema Express, and The New Indian Express—are credible sources that establish Thapaswini Poonacha’s notability as an actress in Kannada cinema.

These sources provide coverage of her career, film roles, and interviews, which meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG). Additionally, her role in upcoming films like Gajarama shows ongoing relevance.

I believe the page should be retained, but I am open to improving it by adding more citations or restructuring content for better compliance with Wikipedia standards.

Looking forward to further discussion. Akashmdp (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
@Akashmdp Is your !vote Keep or Weak Keep? (You don't need to repeat identical arguments over and over, even if it's to thank someone -we understood your point, I guess-, which is perfectly fine, though) Inviting you to "remove" your "Weak Keep" above (with ~~strikethrough~~) (So that it appears ~~Weak Keep~~) if your !vote (the only thing that should be bolded (theorically :D) in a !vote) is indeed Keep. And Gajarama is NOT an upcoming film, mind you. It was released in February and has received multiple reviews in reliable media outlets, this being one of the main arguments (with her other significant role) in favour of retention of the page. -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for your kind suggestion. Yes, I was confused. Gajarams is released. I am sorry for that. Should I update that in the page? Also, there is no option to remove keep with strike. Should I send new reply regarding that? Akashmdp (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

It’s OK, done it for you. The film is clearly indicated as released in the article so there’s no problem. -Mushy Yank. 17:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. If you don’t mind, can you tell me what should I do next? Is the article live? Nomination header is still there. Akashmdp (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Just be patient :D. The discussion will take place until April 9 at least. The nomination tag will remain until the discussion is closed and a consensus (to retain/delete/redirect/draftify) is clear. Nothing to do in particular here; feel free to list new sources on the talk page if you find some and think they are useful to expand the page. Best, -Mushy Yank. 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, if you wish and can, you could upload a quality photograph of this actress if you can find one that corresponds to the guidelines explained in Wikipedia:Images. Be particularly mindful of copyright and legal issues if you can find one. Please note that the potential insertion of an image is totally unrelated to notability questions and that it will not change a thing in the current discussion. -Mushy Yank. 19:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. How long does it take to index on google? Akashmdp (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

From their frequent use of the phrase, it appears Akashmdp gets paid when the page indexes. This was not written by an LLM, at least. BusterD (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTRESS who has worked as female lead in two films that have been released. Page needs to be improved though with secondary independent reliable sources. Sources with interviews are not independent of the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: at the suggestion of another editor, I ran GPTZero on User:Akashmdp's extended posts in this discussion. They each came up 100% LLM created. BusterD (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I had used LLM to improvise my article since my english is not upto the par. So much allegations on me, I am the friend of Thapaswini, I am marketer by profession but doesn’t mean I am charging Thapaswini. I can provide any proof that she is my friend. I am solely doing this for a good will. If you insist me to add COI paid or something, I really don’t mind until it doesn’t affect our article. And I still stand on my stance that I am not being paid. In future I might write an article which will be paid I hope, that time I would definitely mention it. And this is my first article and I am still a noob. I would be expecting you people help rather than defending it. @Mushy Yank@BusterD please check this out.

Thank you Akashmdp (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Example (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Delete - The "two" significant roles argument is good as long as there is significant coverage on the subject themself. Simply having sources verifying a role is not enough. The sourcing here is no better than it was in the first two deletion discussions (mentions, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable). Apparently there are two other films they are involved in. Maybe when there is more coverage of them there will be more coverage of this subject. Until then, it is a case of TOOSOON. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Aside from the LLVM generated content, the views of experienced editors are split between keeping and deleting. Another week getting views of other editors is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - whilst it is true she’s been an actor in two films, it’s not really clear that these are notable even in the context of Indian cinema where it appears more than 100 Kannada language films are released per year. It is true there are reviews from Indian newspapers, but these suggest that the critical reviews were not good. It seems plausible to me that Indian actors might only be considered notable if they’ve been in movies that are particularly notable. The use of LLM and closeness to the subject strongly suggests that the !keep votes above are clouding the issue. JMWt (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NACTOR (barely, but still...). The subject also passes WP:GNG. The sourcing appears good - at least two of them are WP:RS, and the coverage is significant enough to warrant an article. I agree that the page needs to be improved, though.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources do not necessary mean significant coverage. Which references show the person meets WP:BASIC as that is still a requirement given the WP:NACTOR guideline says " meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."--CNMall41 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete until the release of her next film Mr. Jack per WP:TOO EARLY. Given that the film was already shooting in January 2025, a release could happen in 2025. Regarding COI, I or any other editor can blank the draft and rewrite it. The issue I have with keeping the article is that what if her next film doesn't release, will she be notable? I had trouble sourcing her second unreleased film based on English sources [45]. DareshMohan (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She has already acted on two notable movies. This article is being targeted for no reason. You are not considering the “keep” comments from other editors. You guys already decided to get it deleted then keeping it. Feels like being targeted. Please help me rather than keeping the conversation for more than a week. I am just being honest.

Thank you Akashmdp (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed no need to wait for the release of another production. She already passes NACTOR and even if her career stopped today, she would remain notable according to that guideline -Mushy Yank. 21:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If on the other hand the page creator gets themselves blocked for their continued shady behavior, this will make it harder for them to make money on their next page creation. Mushy, please convince Akashmdp to allow the process to work without them continuing to sound like a jerk. BusterD (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Akashmdp please be patient until April,17, at least. Your comment is unclear but sounds partially inappropriate. If, on the other hand, experienced users could refrain from using words like ”jerk”, that is very unlikely to come across as friendly or even polite, that might help too. -Mushy Yank. 05:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BusterD, I am sorry but you are taking it too personal. Please be nice to writers, it will maintain a healthy environment. You using all words like j***, terms like that can feel discouraging for contributors. I have already mentioned I am not doing it for money, you can check above comments of mine. Now, as Mushy Yank suggested, I respect his words and I will stay silent until he ask to.

Thank you. Akashmdp (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I had already ”rewritten” the page, fwiw. -Mushy Yank. 04:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the award notable? See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Chittara_Star_Awards. DareshMohan (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know exactly to what extent, but even if it counts, it does not seem enough for ANYBIO. Or (from a K point of vue), even it’s not enough in istelf, it’s a plus. -Mushy Yank. 08:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is incredible to me the amount of time sometimes that is expended on some cases of notability when it at least passes the basic tests. Is this person sufficiently covered by reliable sources to pass WP:NACTOR. Yes. Are they as notable as Leonardo DiCaprio? No. But they don't need to be. The article subject matter proves in the citations to be notable and should have the article kept. Enough already! Iljhgtn (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 April 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)[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]

Goodness (TV channel)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan TV

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted as copyright violation‎. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Mass Genocide

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

Recreation with slight improvements but with the same terrible sources as Russian Holocaust, which was just deleted as an A10 attack page for being a different take on the Jewish Bolshevism antisemitic conspiracy theory. I urged the creator to drop these sources and to use the AfC, but to no avail. WP:TNT: if we should have a new article on this, not already covered in our articles about the Russian Revolution and its aftermath or in Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, then it should be based n good sources instead of starting from the basis of an attack page. Fram (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, actual article issues aside, I have deleted the page as a copyright violation of, essentially, every source cited in it. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hadn't read the sources far enough to notice this, thank you for doing the dirty work :-) Fram (talk) 15:35, 18 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.

Jany Schella

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

This article does not follow the manual of style for Wikipedia at all and does not include a single source. (apologies if I started this discussion incorrectly, first time doing an XfD) Atharva210 (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. Atharva210 (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Unsourced and not encyclopedic tone as nominator has already stated. It looks entirely promotional and probably written with a conflict of interest, possibly by a paid editor. A quick WP:BEFORE turned up no obvious reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject I am going to nominate for speedy deletion under WP:G11. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC) SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IAmaze

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of credible sources. Doesnt match with WP:sicgov WP:gng WP:org AndesExplorer (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta Air Lines destinations

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

A 2018 RFC found consensus that: "...Wikipedia should not have these lists, due to the excessive detail and maintenance required for keeping a local version up to date of data which is available directly from airline websites anyway. Basically, the arguments in Wikipedia is not a directory." This was later upheld in a 2024 AFD discussion specifically related to the list of United Airlines destinations. In light of that, I propose deleting this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations found that these lists do not violate WP:NOT. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cited RFC is overruled by latest consesus. Axisstroke (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Delta Air Lines#Destinations as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST – I have been unable to find any reliable and independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage of a "list of Delta Air Lines destinations". Most of the sources in the article are just primary routine news coverage mostly reposting Delta Air Lines' announcements of new routes/routes being terminated. Searches performed did not yield any sources that would establish standalone notability per the aforementioned. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Aviationwikiflight. JFHJr (㊟) 01:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the face of it, it should be deleted/merged, per WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTADIRECTORY. However, there is also WP:LISTPURP-NAV, which may apply here. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this list serves any navigational purpose. If a reader is looking for an airport and don't know what it's called, they'll look up the city or go to List of airports in the United States. Toadspike [Talk] 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hee-soo

AfDs for this article:

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

I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search to assess the notability of this article. I searched in Google, Naver News, and English-language Korean news sources including The Korea Herald, Yonhap News, and KBS World using both English ("Cho Hee-soo rhythmic gymnast") and Korean ("조희수 리듬체조") keywords.

The only results available are routine coverage from sports result listings and minor announcements in domestic outlets. There are no significant independent sources that offer in-depth coverage or analysis of the subject.

According to WP:NSPORTS (Wikipedia:Notability for sportspeople), an athlete is presumed notable if they have "received significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Cho Hee-soo has not met this threshold. The article does not demonstrate lasting impact or significant coverage beyond simple event participation.

Therefore, I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the specific guideline for athletes (WP:NSPORTS) and should be deleted. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and Korea. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per extensive BEFORE search by nom that revealed the subject does not meet SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 16:55, 18 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 keep‎. I withdraw my nomination in favor of a bold merge instead. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 14:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Library

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

No significant coverage in any sources I can find - not helped by the fact that "Asian Library" is a thoroughly generic name with many sources unrelated to the University of British Columbia one. I recommend redirecting to University of British Columbia Library. it's lio! | talk | work 14:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Museums and libraries, Schools, Science, Asia, and Canada. it's lio! | talk | work 14:16, 18 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.

Just Detention International

AfDs for this article:

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

Partial recreation of article previously deleted via AFD. Still fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). Not a recreation (I don't know what the article said in 2019), just an article about the same topic. I think the sources cited in the article show that it passes WP:GNG, if not additional coverage can readily be found in Google Books, Wikipedia Library, etc.Prezbo (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was half-wrong yesterday--having looked through Google Books and Wikipedia Library more thoroughly I think the two sources currently cited in the article (Jenness and Singer) are the best ones available. Both of those cover the organization in some detail though. They clear the bar of "significant coverage." Prezbo (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Jenness's study I did not find any reference to organization. In Singer's book how can we be sure that he refers to organization? Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a reference in the book of Jenness's, with the old name, so I was confused. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean? If you get the book and look on the cited page you’ll see where he refers to them. Actually I think that book has more in depth coverage that isn’t available in full on Google Books. Prezbo (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Υou must demonstrate that there is coverage from reliable secondary sources, citing specific books or studies. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not been able to find reliable secondary sources independent of the organisation. I don't think it's notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have done some WP:BEFORE search and found sources but the significance of coverage is rather weak and I don't feel confident it passes NORG. Not significant coverage such as https://www.ninertimes.com/news/inside-the-shadowland/article_e218ce10-efd2-5975-b28c-edbbf582d734.html this one. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more views about the cited sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Airlines Flight 3506

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

This is a WP:COOKIE incident. Unnotable in many aspects. Also fails WP:GNG. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Barely newsworthy, but in any case WP:NOTNEWS. Very clearly fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Puerto Rico. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS Bloxzge 025 (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A hard landing with no injuries is not notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete Low importance, low coverage, and low effort article. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTNEWS.

Be wary of a possible case of WP:SNOW!

@Ivebeenhacked

(ping me for questions! and i'll respond!) lolzer3k (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no lasting coverage at all Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Worgisbor (congregate) 16:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DIIOP

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Mathewson

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

Politician whose claim to notability is not verifiable. Evidently leader of the Green Party of Ontario in 1990, though our article on the party indicates that it elected its first leader in 1993, and her own bio notes that the party was a highly decentralized organization at the time. The claim that she was the party's leader is cited to her appearance representing the party in a community television event, and a second source is given as evidence that she is not mentioned on the party's website.

There is a Katherine Mathewson contesting the riding of Oshawa in the 2025 federal election, but I can't determine if this is the same person, there is a 35-year time gap, and just running in an election does not confer notability anyway. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pearly Gates (record label)

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

Reason: AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC) There are no citations on this page. The only other source I could find was an old MySpace page. The band "Gregory and the Hawk" exists, but doesn't seem to be affiliated with "Pearly Gates." And the Royal Family? Come on. This article should be deleted, unless we're going to write an article for every random MySpace page there is. In terms of specific Wikipedia rules; fails notability standards, sourcing standards, and parts of this article are plainly false.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhay Deshpande

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

No references are available related to the claim of being a Member of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, that subject also fails to be notable as a Businessperson. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:NBIO. Taabii (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, India, and Maharashtra. Taabii (talk) 12:11, 18 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.

Alien abduction entities

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

A textbook WP:COATRACK whose title refers to the "entities" conducting alien abductions, but whose content is a concise survey of every alien abduction trope under the sun, referenced to "gee, this person needs help"-type fluff articles in otherwise reliable sources. We have articles on the different "types" of alien beings UFO believers have described. This article adds nothing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This feels like an entry for a fanfiction wiki. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and redirect to Alien abduction. There is an ongoing discussion of sorts at Talk:Alien abduction entities#Redirect, but frankly, given the failure of sourcing issues to be addressed properly, I can't see that being particularly productive. I could go into greater detail, and will do if requested, but as a summary I'd suggest that the sourcing falls broadly into two classes: (a) inadequate, pro-fringe, and sometimes not actually supporting the content it is supposedly being cited for, and (b) adequate, but covering material already discussed in greater detail, in context, in the parent Alien abduction article. In my opinion, there is nothing of significance worthy of merge. The article is an obvious PoV-fork, giving entirely undue prominence to a cobbled-together collection of miscellaneous factoids regarding the unverifiable claims of individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after making sure there's nothing useful in it that would work better in Alien abduction, which seems to be an already-begun effort, per Andy's comment above. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker Island (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

This game passed AfD the last time on the merit of Jay is Games, but the consensus has since shifted to the point that such a site shouldn't count towards notability. That leaves only a Gamezebo review and Player.One contributor article as evidence of any notability; people have been unable to agree on whether Player.One is reliable for 7 years so far. The rest is trivial coverage. I am skeptical that this game is notable overall. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989

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

Not notable. I cannot find any sources that mention this topic. Landpin (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Sources are provided and this is clearly notable legislation . Hansard will provide adequate additional sources if required. However, this is not the most useful article because of the narrowness of its scope. A better article might be Water quality regulation in England and Wales which could incorporate all the relevant legislation, hence my suggestion to Retain rather Keep in its current format. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 4 sources that have been cited.

1 is the regulation itself, a primary source. 1 is the draft of ''the subsequent regulations''. not about the original regulations. 1 is the act the regulations are made under. there is only 1 secondary source listed and I can't find any secondary sources. Landpin (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain as suggested by Velella. Could merge into Water supply and sanitation in the United Kingdom § Water regulation but that's already a long article. Wire723 (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Water Industry Act 1991 is a relatively short article Landpin (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Movement (Iceland)

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

Looking through sources that I was able to find online, I did see brief mentions of the party, mostly on visir.is, but did not find any sources that would convice me that the party has received significant coverage in independent sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Europe, and Iceland. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirecet to Ástþór Magnússon Wium. Geschichte (talk) 04:40, 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! 09:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ástþór Magnússon Wium – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:18, 18 April 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]

Foresters House

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

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about designated heritage buildings is something that we should be expanding on Wikipedia. This is a prominent and very well-known building - you even see mention of it in fiction, such as [ short stories] by Austin Clarke. There has been coverage over the last half-century, such as this significant trade article when it was sold in 2022. There was national media coverage when it was constructed, such as in the Globe and Mail (ProQuest 1270450320). Even if the article isn't deemed worthy of inclusion, it's most certainly should be merged and/or redirected to Foresters Financial. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the scroll.in piece referenced in the article does contain some analysis such as suggesting the tv channel is set up to promote positive news rather than the negative stories that have surfaced about the church, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: WP:GNG typically requires evidence from multiple independent, reliable sources providing such coverage to establish notability, or perhaps exceptionally deep coverage in a single source. My WP:BEFORE search didn't uncover other sources offering this level of independent analysis, suggesting this might be an isolated mention rather than evidence of wider significant coverage. Therefore, I maintain that the subject currently fails WP:GNG based on the overall sourcing found. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pop (Dutch comedian)

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

The sourcing here is at best dubious: some theatrical database, a club and a festival. The subject is likely associated with all three; all three are promotional blurbs. Independent coverage is glaringly absent. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:11, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ugly side of Wikipedia. The sources used are qualitative in nature. But to satisfy you I have used a few more sources from the largest newspapers in the Netherlands. I also do not appreciate that you insinuate that I am in any way connected to Stefan Pop. Coriovallum (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot of articles available, but they are mostly connected to the recent sketch and a recent incident in Lubach. But there is for example this interview, which signals some notability. Dajasj (talk) 08:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No lack of sources whatsoever to satisfy the GNG. Nomination was focused on references (even though it uses the term "sourcing") in clear defiance of NEXIST. Also please rename to Stefan Pop, with the Romanian tenor at Ștefan Pop. No disambiguation page and dabs needed for just two people with names spelled differently. gidonb (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 4 and 6 are about this individual and his sketch about Zelensky, with the rest we should have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Saks

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, writers and musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria verified by WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work in reliable sources independent of themselves -- for example, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to themselves as circular metaverification of their own existence, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to third-party media coverage about them, such as professional book reviews and/or evidence that they've won or been nominated for major literary awards.
But this essentially just states that his work exists, without documenting anything that would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:AUTHOR criteria, and it's referenced almost entirely to primary sourcing that isn't support for notability, such as his own podcast and the books metaverifying themselves. The only secondary source cited here at all is a (deadlinked but recoverable) Tiny Desk Concert, which just briefly namechecks his participation in the surrounding text without saying anything substantive about him, and thus isn't sufficient to get him over GNG all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Keep: It already has bare minimum of sources + this source from Jewish Telegraphic Agency. I seen worse cases where there's nothing to be done, and the deletion is reserved for these cases. LastJabberwocky (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination. He hasn’t yet achieved enough coverage or notoriety to merit keeping the article. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutaro Yoshino

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

With 7 J3 appearances, [46], he doesn't seem notable, but as he played in Brazil briefly there may be stuff out there. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Brazil. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia only consists of routine announcements. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Have fleshed out article with two in-depth articles detailing his time in Brazil, as well as multiple other smaller articles. Meets GNG. Zênite (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Oh wow, fantastic additions Zênite! I would be very happy to keep the article now after the WP:HEY. I can't speedy close this due to Clara's delete but I will ping @Clariniie: to ask her to look at it again :) RossEvans19 (talk) - 17:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources from Targma seem to have significant coverage: 2020 and 2024. I'm just not sure if the source is reliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of these from Targma is one I independently thought worth further discussion, below. However no one has addressed the question of reliability. Isn't this primary reporting of team news? As it stands that is not a clear pass to me, but would be happy to have the discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – I found this in Brazilian media [47], [48], basically talking about his signing by Sport Capixaba in 2016 and summarizing his time in Brazil. I don't know if it's enough, but it can certainly help. Svartner (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer announcements do not count as significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show (apparently - AGF!) notability. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources, and user:GiantSnowman who is a bit of an expert on footballers globally. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a chain of trust issue here if we say per the above editor, and that editor only says that sources "apparently" show notability. Are we reading the sources here? I haven't yet, but making this comment to request a relist since we are on day 7, and I would need some time to do so. On the face of it, the page looks reasonable, but a source review would be good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I have now conducted my source review. We need significant coverage in multiple independent reliables secondary sources. There are 16 sources currently on the page, although, in fact, multiple articles from the same outlet will count as a single source for purposes of GNG. There are thus potentially 10 there. My source review looks at all 16, but treats like sources together. There are a couple that we could discuss further, but on the face of it, I am not certain we have any suitable sources and I am reasonably clear we don't have multiple sources. Source assessment:

1. & 14. [49] [50]- Primary / not independent -

2. [51] Listing, not SIGCOV. Primary?

3. [52] WP:SPS - blog. Not a WP:RS. Not SIGCOV - passing mention.

4. [53] - Interview. WP:PRIMARY per policy. Not independent.

5. [54] - This appears to speak about the subject, and have some relevant background, but it doesn’t look much like a reliable source. What is it?

6 & 7. [55], [56] - Club news is primary.

8, 10 & 11. [57] [58] [59]Reporting of team announcements - primary.

9. & 15. [60] [61] - Team reports are primary. The second of these (source 15) has more in depth information about the subject, although it is yielded from an interview and in a source that appears primary. I will mark it as a maybe, however, to indicate this is one we might discuss further.

&

12, 13 [62] [63] - Team announcements - primary.

16. [64] - Reports an appointment - primary.

I will certainly consider a redirect as a WP:ATD - perhaps to a team? Or is he mentioned elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 6 and 7 are from GE (Grupo Globo), the largest sports portal in Brazil, so they are not primary. Svartner (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking. It is not the quality of the source that makes them primary, it is the content. I agree it is a good source, but they are primary because all they have is a brief news report about him joining the team. Source 6 has Tigre Linharense confirmed the arrival of 19-year-old Japanese midfielder Yutaro Yoshino, who is already with the rest of the squad finalising their pre-season in Atibaia, São Paulo. and nothing more. As well as being primary, of course, that is not SIGCOV, so either way it is out. Source 7 is fuller, with 3 paragraphs about the page subject arriving at the club. It doesn't actually tell us anything about the subject himself, but we are told he has arrived and will be playing on Wednesday. Also note that it says "Sport-ES received news..." So this is classic club news reporting. We are told a player has been signed, arrived and will play in the next match. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS: It is what is in the report that makes this primary. In any case, what could we use from that report to write the page? We cannot even say he did play on that date, because we only have this report that he was meant to. There is no secondary information about the player from which an encyclopaedic page could be written. 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources perfectly cover his formative period in Brazilian football. The question is which sources cover the period of his return to Japan. Svartner (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epoch Networks

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

Fails WP:NORG; WP:BEFORE fails with Google/DDG search; one ref, the first ISP Planet ref, seems reliable, but is old, stands alone, and is from a specialist/industry publication that no longer exists. Second ref only discusses the ISP in passing with greater emphasis on its founder. Apparently survived a PROD in 2006. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. /over.throws/^they+✎ 20:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some coverage in digitised newspapers, including one listing of the top 10 national (US) internet providers in 1997 - Epoch is listed at number 7. I'll see what more I can find and add to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Any luck? Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have added sources and info from digitised newspapers (and a bit more info from the existing sources). A Google Books search shows that there is also some coverage in computer magazines, which I have not (yet) included - I will try to include this one [65] at least (though IT is really outside my areas of expertise or interest). I think there is just enough significant coverage for it to meet WP:NCORP (including the ISP Planet article - its age and the fact that the publication no longer exists are irrelevant.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghana Highways Authority

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

Not notable, promotional article Loewstisch (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's notable or not I'm not sure (I don't know how we assess the notability of government agencies) but the article is not in the slightest bit promotional. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ministry of Roads and Highways (Ghana) of which this is a department. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cora Systems

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

The article on Cora Systems lacks sufficient independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per Wikipedia's guidelines Loewstisch (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that this <200-person software company meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The sources in the article (and those that I can find outside it) are either ROTM "press release republished in local or specialist news outlets" (of a type to be expected for any company of its type), are trivial passing mentions (like random "name drops" in an Oireachtas debate or Limerick County Council report), or (in some cases) do not mention the subject org at all. The clear WP:PAID / WP:COI / WP:PROMO overtones, in the article's creation and its tone/intent, are also very very difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources discussing the subject in depth (WP:SIGCOV). COI and Promotional in tone as said by Guliolopez. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I apologize for mistakes I made in writing the article and hope to improve. In the spirit of the project's WP:PRESERVE policy, I've made edits to the article to address concerns and am very open to further improvements. I believe there are enough reliable sources and significant coverage but will stick to WP:THREE for this comment. I'm also adding The Irish Times articles to the refs.

1) Irish Independent: The article is entirely about the company (not a trivial passing mention) and written by a journalist at Irish Independent (secondary source).

2) RTE: The article is entirely about the company and is written by a journalist at RTE, a public service broadcaster.

3) Silicon Republic: The article is entirely about the company and written by a journalist at Silicon Republic. Arcticwindowpane (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment:

Re: Guliolopez's objection: "Where does either linked source say anything about the org being "among a small number of technology firms based outside Ireland’s major urban centers"? Or anything like it? The siliconrepublic.com source makes no mention of the subject org."

The reason I added that Silicon Republic source is because it lists the locations where most tech companies in Ireland are located. Cora Systems is not in one of those locations. Ergo, it is one of a small number of tech firms outside major urban centers.

Re: the quote from Neale Richmond, here it is in full:

"Over the past number of years, Ireland has become a global digital technology hub – and pioneering Irish innovators like Cora Systems have played a pivotal and transformative role in the sector. Global leaders are increasingly turning to Irish-owned enterprises for solutions, as their innovative offerings, talent, and cutting-edge services are trusted around the world.

As a result, we have seen the development of innovative, talented, and disruptive Irish-owned digital technology companies and Cora Systems exemplifies this. Today’s opening is a great boost not just for Dublin but also for the North-West region where their HQ is based, connecting both to the global stage. The expansion paves the way for Cora Systems to grow its highly innovative business and to significantly scale its activities. I wish Philip and team all the best for what is sure to be a very exciting future.”

I believe this sentence is supported by that quote: "At the opening of its Dublin office, then-Minister of State for Business, Employment and Retail Neale Richmond recognized the company's "transformative role" in the Irish digital technology sector." 20:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Arcticwindowpane (talk)

Hi. In terms of the sources you mention, they are interviews and republished press releases. Which are not considered independent for the purposes of WP:SIRS. Specifically:

Independent.ie (1 Apr 2018). That piece is written by Seán Gallagher. A businessperson. Not a "journalist at Irish Independent". As part of a series in which he "[met] owners of small and medium sized businesses" (in which the company interviewee describes a 57-person business with €5.5m turnover - similar to innumerable SMEs worldwide). As it is an interview, it doesn't materially contribute to notability.
RTE.ie (24 May 2022). That is a republished press release. Similar to any business report published every day. The original company press release (22 May 2022) is here. The RTE piece is not independent reporting.
Silicon Republic (19 Jun 2023). That is a republished press release. The original company press release (also dated to 19 June 2023) is here. It is not independent reporting.

In terms of the FV/SYNTH/OR concerns, those should be dealt with in the article or article talk. Not here. (SYNTH/OR/FV issues are WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues and not relevant to AfD discussions.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thuwaini Al-Saadoun campaign (1797)

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

Fails WP:GNG and is probably a hoax. No citations are given here except for a list of sources totalling 3 pages, none of them attributed to any of the text and searching for sources on Google shows nothing but this Wikipedia article and mirrors of it 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Kuwait. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless other reliable sources can be found for this event, the notability of this article does not suffice. Mkdasher64 (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Longisquama (disambiguation)

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

We don't create dabs for individual components (WP:PARTIAL) of taxonomic names, nor is a specific name without the generic name a likely search topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not sure, but might possibly be worth a hatnote in Longisquama to Orania longisquama??? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Berjikly

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

The article lacks independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Also, today it was deleted by Explicit for SPA, fails WP BIO Najs Nam (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Najs Nam (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This Article does not have reliable citations, therefore it does not meets notability standards for Wikipedia mainspace article.Thanks KayVegas (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that the article after PROD was shortly recreated by the original creator. That user seems to be an WP:SPA given how most edits were related Armen Berjikly and one of his companies, Kanjoya which has been deleted. Both pages had very promotional content. What a coincidence this user who had no activity since 2019 suddenly decided to be active 6 years later after one of the articles got deleted.- Imcdc Contact 07:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suruchi Singh

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

The article about Suruchi Singh may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for sports and athletics, as it lacks sufficient citations from reliable, independent secondary sources to demonstrate significant coverage Najs Nam (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Najs Nam (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - She is World Champion in Women's 10m air pistol event. She also won the gold medal in mixed event category.Gardenkur (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gardenkur (talk • contribs) 09:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is badly written but deletion is not cleanup, and the subject passes WP:NSPORT with WP:SIGCOV in the generally reliable The Hindu ([66], [67]), plus bylined coverage in the Times of India, Press Trust of India, and Olympics.com. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties

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

Found only blogs and party bulletins/press releases, no results on Scholar. Cannot find any SIGCOV in reliable sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Greece. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously notable. OP's argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
…how? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is lack of sources WP:IDONTLIKEIT? All sources in the article as far as I can tell are press releases or the organizing group's own webpage. Nothing else found, although the nondescrpit name makes searching difficult. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 44 sources listed, one of which is People's World. How is that a "lack of sources"? Reliable sources aren't just sources you agree with politically, please read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 44 sources listed are mostly not reliable! Are there any other reliable sources besides People’s World? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources of this article mostly consist of press releases from the IMCWP's website about its meetings. Other sources are either publications from communist parties and movements or Facebook/twitter posts, neither of which are reliable and independent sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There's absolutely no valid reason to delete this article. I'm suspecting that there's some sockpuppeting going on. Castroonthemoon (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Castroonthemoon Socking by whom? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Fresh blackcurrant because they mentioned IMCWP in another AfD the day before. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 01:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, this is obviously notable. The OP needs to read the WP:BIASED section. Just because the topic is covered by ideological sources it does not mean they do not establish the notability of this organization and its existence. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale is not that the sources are biased; it’s that they are not reliable. They are mostly press releases and party bulletins. What are the three best sources to establish this topic’s notability? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources here. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas M. Melsheimer

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

This article only concerns a trial lawyer and is entirely about this person's work for a law firm, Winston & Strawn. When checking the sources there are few independent WP:BASIC sources, and the subject overall fails that criteria, lacking significant coverage in independent (!) sources. It also doesn't help that the article is written in a promotional tone. It was created in 2013 by a single-purpose account. GuardianH 06:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, Indiana, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jbt89 (talk) 07:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - under the cruft is a notable lawyer who appears to have been ripped off by a professional editor. I started to remove the promotional and NN trivia. Bearian (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boys (Sky Ferreira song)

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

Should be merged to Night Time, My Time. The only focused attention on it I could find is in the Drowned in Sound album review (it's not really in-depth). Handful of barely passing mentions in other album reviews. Apparently Idolator and Popdust both ran pressers on the song's release (no archive links), which I imagine was completely run-of-the-mill. This would be better covered on the album's page. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Albums and songs, and California. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Project

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

Defunct website that doesn't seem to have sufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability as noted in talk page. I do notice there are some now removed (negative) reviews on the website but these seem to be a very surface level and the coverage is rather short. Therefore I am nominating this for discussion. Imcdc Contact 06:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and California. Imcdc Contact 06:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Saikia

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

Is this guy really notable? I see that one of his books was reviewed by the Guardian, and another by the Tablet magazine - but that's pretty much it. The other links are just his personal profile on the Tablet and his blog on Wordpress. HPfan4 (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. His book The Venice Lido got reviews in The Guardian and The Spectator, and his book The Red Book got this piece in Tablet and was included in this piece in the Wall Street Journal. I wasn't able to find anything for his other books. It's not much, but it probably just about clears the bar for WP:NAUTHOR for me. MCE89 (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Travel and tourism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Book reviews as above seem fine, more than enough for AUTHOR. Could use more biographical info in the article, but that's not for AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Chugach Mountains avalanche

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

Fails WP:NEVENT due to a lack of WP:LASTING coverage. This March 12 article is the coverage furthest removed from the event I could find: [68]. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Lynn to Avondale shared path

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

I cannot find any RS providing SIGCOV, just news releases covering the announcement. The current sourcing is just two different advocacy groups and Auckland Transport. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combat of Giants

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

Lacking in notability. The article has had a citation banner on it for nearly 10 years. Only one game had extensive coverage, and it was the 3DS game. S★★★★★ 03:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Combat of Giants: Dinosaurs 3D with a short and general overview on the previous games in the series. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Combat of Giants: Dinosaurs 3D - no pertinent sourced content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sky City 1000

AfDs for this article:

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

infrastructure article proposed in 1989 and without a completion and creation date. I echo what was said in the first nomination: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; and articles are created when they are under construction. Iban14mxl (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability does not expire. Featured on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering (2003). 10 years earlier, an article in NewScientist (1993). Proposed ideas can be notable. There are proposed ideas to live on Mars such as Caves of Mars Project (2004), Mars Direct (1996). None of these ideas have happened, and probably never will, but we still have articles for them because they were notable ideas. -- GreenC 02:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an architect, but at first glance it is clear that the design is outdated and does not meet the construction requirements, or it could be that this project was replaced by another work. Unlike the hotel and skyscraper started in 1989 in Pyongyang, this work was not even started. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Iban14mxl (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see Caves of Mars Project (2004), Mars Direct (1996)? Both of these projects never happened, never will happen, and are not feasible. Yet, they are both notable. Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. -- GreenC 04:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's curious that the media doesn't talk about this project, but Wikipedia does. You're using a series that came out more than 23 years ago and hasn't been updated with reliable and verifiable sources. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are unfamiliar with the concept notability doesn't expire. A notable topic 23 years ago, is still notable today. It doesn't require a constant stream of sources forever to remain suitable to remain on Wikipedia. -- GreenC 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not a repository of unverified information. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate is usually applied to things like "List of murders", since there are so many of them, we don't try to list them all, such a list would be indiscriminate. But this project is not indiscriminate because 1) there are very few projects like it in scope, almost by definition this project is highly discriminated from other building projects and 2) it has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources making it notable. -- GreenC 15:44, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not the project happened or will happen isn't relevant, the sourcing situation is. This is also a misapplication of WP: CRYSTAL. Cortador (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador The most I found was this article it is stated that the project would have been the tallest building in the world and one of the most innovative, officially remaining as a discontinued project. I must assume that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and if it is officially stated that this project was cancelled, why do they persist in maintaining this article? Iban14mxl (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made a case why the existing sources are insufficient. You have also already been informed why the project being unfinished doesn't matter, so I won't bother explaining it a third time. Cortador (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not a repository of unverified information. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are having trouble searching for sources. I started with Google, and found this page. At the bottom, in a section called "References", are three sources. Including the one you found at Mens Health, that is now 4 sources. This topic is discussed in 86 books and magazines at archive.org. Some examples:

Would you like more sources? -- GreenC 15:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmic (speedrunner)

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

I genuinely love the shit out of Kosmic's videos and would consider myself a fanboy, but WP:BEFORE demonstrates that he doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:CREATIVE. This brand-new article cites an article from UPI, which is a good source. But then the other citation is from Mashable (a dumpsterfire of a source that shouldn't confer notability to anything, although as it barely discusses Kosmic, it wouldn't anyway) about the same exact event that UPI discussed. The UPI article is 108 words in length and barely even talks about Kosmic himself (thus while being reliable and independent, it doesn't confer significant coverage). This is cut-and-dry unless my WP:BEFORE failed to uncover significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The strongest sources BEFORE turned up are occasional stories like this, but again, this is almost exclusively focused on SMB speedrunning, not Kosmic himself. As someone who loves speedruns and challenge runs and adores seeing them become mainstream, I would want to see this turned into a genuinely robust, useful article using reliable, independent sources, but I don't believe that to currently be possible because of how far short of notability guidelines he falls. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Low notability demonstrated. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability; little notability demonstrated. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 10:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similar to nom, my WP:BEFORE only finds coverage of some of his speedrunning accomplishments, but not significant enough coverage of Kosmic himself to meet WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Yue🌙 19:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ren

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

Declined prod. No coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia at the 2000 Summer Olympics: Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC as there is no WP:SIGCOV present in the article, while a search in Trove, Google Newspapers/books, and corresponding wikis didn't reveal anything better. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vigor (software)

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

Extreme lack of notability. Stub article. Actual code is just a realization of an idea from a comic strip, and not meant for actual use. Hexware (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hexware (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some references on the article talk page. PC Chip is probably a good source, although I can't easily find the article being referred to. Linuxticker.com ([69]) seems okay, and the Salon.com piece ([70]) might be usable even though there's no consensus on reliability at WP:SALON.COM. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:49, 12 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, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio tekee muron

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable book. SL93 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Literature, and Finland. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the outcome is "delete" or "redirect" instead of "keep", the article Radio tekee murron, which inspired the name of this book, should include a mention if this book. JIP | Talk 01:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources listed. A random cookbook doesn't need an article

Thegoofhere (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Jalalabad

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was previously deleted following an AfD discussion, where participants deemed it non-notable. I have reviewed the current version of the article and found that the creator has added numerous references that are not relevant to the subject. It appears that the creator is attempting to showcase notability by including a large number of sources, regardless of their relevance. Due to the lack of independent, in-depth coverage, I believe the subject still does not meet the notability guidelines. I propose deletion.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 00:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 00:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to note for the record that while the first nomination was started under similar notability concerns, the resulting deletion was actually a G5 deletion because the creator of that version of the article was a sock. (I have no opinion or comment at this time on the current article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete good faith page, but still fails to be WP:N and obviously a waste of hosting space. Shaneapickle (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am trying to add more citations and I found some with in-depth coverage, I think it will be better to keep the page or use a alternative method like merge. The previous nomination was indeed for lack of notability but it was not deleted due to lack of notability, so it doesn't really apply i guess. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 7:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: I reviewed your edits, but the subject still does not appear to be notable due to the lack of WP:RS and in-depth coverage. You claim to have found some substantial coverage—please indicate which sources you believe qualify as in-depth. You added sylhetbarta24, banglaquiz, dailycountrytodaybd, which are not considered reliable sources. The remaining sources primarily discuss the killing of a journalist during the Quota protests, which is unrelated to the subject’s notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 09:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ameba (website)

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability. Speedy kept in the dark ages of AfD when "but Alexa ranking" was enough to justify a keep. Single independent reference, nothing RS located on a search. Caveat being that I don't read Japanese, but you'd think there would be something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Japan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a bunch of articles about the platform: 1

https://japan.cnet.com/article/20402897/ https://newatlas.com/japan-ameba-pigg-blogging-platform-facebook/13673/ https://venturebeat.com/games/japans-ameba-pico-virtual-world-hits-1m-users-in-90-days/ https://thebridge.jp/en/2013/07/amebapigg-cyberagent

Those combined with sources from the Japanese article leave me unconvinced that the sourcing situation is bad enough to justify deletion. Cortador (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FyaVerse

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

Pretty SEO/PR refs, other junk sources about a non-notable artist. The article lacks citations from reliable sources that provide significant, independent coverage. The subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as the existing references are primarily promotional or paid content. Tukšumi (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Music. Tukšumi (talk) 00:01, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – FyaVerse is a notable reggae/dancehall artist with one consecutive HDP Music Award nomination (2025), a Billboard Argentina Hot 100 appearance, and one #1 song on Hype TV and one #10 on FiWi Choice. Notability is supported by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Novadorodney98 (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aeropolis 2001

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

A building project was conceived in 1989, but there has been no news of it since 1995. Too much time has passed, and I doubt they'll build it in the coming decades. Iban14mxl (talk) 23:39, 17 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Proposed in 1989 but no target date or either beginning of construction date. It was never built, so it seems that it was just a proposal that never got beyond that. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not the project has been abandoned isn't relevant for notability, the sourcing situation is. Cortador (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commnet Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cristal no facts, events, or future works are predicted here. And I also have to add that this article does not maintain reliable or verifiable sources, nor are they updated, no one is talking about this project today. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't expire. Nobody reporting on this project isn't relevant.

If you think this article should be deleted due to a lack of sources, do a BEFORE instead of making blanket claims about sourcing. Cortador (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some record that this is a reality, otherwise we would be falling into speculation, this is simply not relevant. Iban14mxl (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Middle Eastern countries by GDP

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

No sources given. Content-wise almost exact duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita Pragmatic Puffin (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

[1]