Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 12

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      May 17 (Sat)      May 16 (Fri)      May 15 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

TATAA Biocenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Relies almost entirely on primary sources. Unable to find any sources that show it meets WP:NCORP. The only secondary coverage is about an event - the former CEO being removed and suing a law firm that he says gave him bad counsel that led to his removal. But there’s no WP:INHERITORG from being associated with an event (and the event here does not even have sufficient enduring significance to qualify for a page under WP:Event in any case. I have a WP:COI as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by this company. I do not want to waste the time of volunteer editors to evaluate proposed corrections and edit requests on a page that does not qualify.) Brucemyboy1212 (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing is not particualrly strong. Notability is not clear. Does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment leaning keep - article definitely has an excessive detail problem, but they received some non-routine seeming coverage for their COVID-19 testing program (added 2 sources to article, although one isn't accessible w/o pressreader). Zzz plant (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It appears that the nominator may have been influenced more by a perceived conflict of interest (COI) issue than by the actual question of notability. The company in question was founded by Mikael Kubista, and similar patterns have occurred before. For example, on Mikael Kubista's own Wikipedia page, there was repeated removal of content related to a legal dispute involving TATAA Biocenter by SPA @ArtChomsky which was settled by an admin and the argument to remove a fact related TATAA there was irrational. A similar issue seems to be happening here—there appears to be an effort, possibly coordinated behind the scenes, to suppress certain information by removing pages from Wikipedia. This raises concerns about the integrity of the platform’s commitment to neutrality and transparency.

I urge editors to review this situation carefully, with special attention to the quality and relevance of the sources cited, to ensure that content is evaluated fairly and not unduly influenced by COI concerns or efforts to obscure verifiable information.ManIxal (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Světec train crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This article is about an event which appears not to have received any coverage beyond initial reporting on the day of, or after, the event four years ago. Although the content might be suitable for merging to the railway station page, there is no article there. C679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Czech Republic. C679 07:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The investigation is still under way.

https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-

https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are those two sources enough of a prove of continued coverage? There is not much else since there is no new information to cover. When the Rail Safety Inspection (Drážní inspekce) finishes their investigation and releases the report to public, there will be more sources talking about it. GoogolManiac (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:News article, no retrospective coverage. Notable events are ones that continue to get coverage in reliable sources even when there is no new information. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is retrospective coverage: https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne This one is three years later (e.g. one year old), talking about how the accident showed system problems of the Czech railway network and how the investigation is still under way. The other source is an interim investigation report from the Rail Safety Inspection Office of the Czech Republic which came out one month ago. GoogolManiac (talk) 11:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Striking my delete vote because the HN source indicates some level of retrospective coverage. Are there any more sources like that (besides routine things like government reports)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not that I know of. GoogolManiac (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is retrospective coverage.

https://di.gov.cz/mimoradne-udalosti/setrene-mimoradne-udalosti-a-zaverecne-zpravy/svetec-

https://archiv.hn.cz/c1-67310950-tri-roky-a-porad-nic-tragicka-nehoda-ukazala-systemove-problemy-zeleznice-vysetrovani-ale-vazne GoogolManiac (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing does not show WP:LASTING. Not sure if this is notable enough for a stand alone article. Did this impact anything like regualtions or legislation? Ramos1990 (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Grouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of significant coverage in article or a BEFORE search - the sources in the article are trivial mentions and Google Earth links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alaska. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move. It's a small little lake, does pass WP:GEOFEAT especially once you realise it's mis-titled: "Grouse Lake." SportingFlyer T·C 21:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SportingFlyer: I assume you mean WP:NATFEAT, as GEOFEAT is for artificial features. NATFEAT is a not a presumption of notability and still requires coverage that meets WP:GNG. What sources do you see that meet that standard? Those currently in the article are Google Earth imagery (sources 1, 4, 5, 6), two directory listings (2, 3), three sentences in a fishing guide (7), and one that does not mention the article subject at all (8). None of those qualify as significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I did mean WP:GEONATURAL, and no, NATFEAT does NOT require GNG. The test is The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. A quick search of "Grouse Lake" shows that is the case. SportingFlyer T·C 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — So this is attempting to be another discussion based solely on the mere presence or absence of certain sources? Are you assuming good faith towards the offline source, which looks pretty solid to me? As the revision history shows this to be a port from it.wiki, there's already the presumption of a lack of good faith towards an article creator who may not be entirely proficient in English. Perhaps more importantly, is AFC going to be called on the carpet for their lack of due diligence prior to moving this into article space? (These questions and many others will be answered on the next episode of Soap!) RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: By the way, WP:AFC reviewers are told to accept articles that have a good chance of surviving a deletion discussion, not an iron-clad one. With no supporting delete !votes in a week, I don't think anyone needs to be called on the carpet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Upon my reading of WP:NATFEAT and included sources in the article, I believe it musters the requirement of having sufficient verifiable information, outside just maps or google earth imagery, for an encyclopedic article. — WeWake (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: to my mild surprise, I've found a book source: [Flyfisher's Guide to Alaska]. Along with the current sources, I believe this pushes the lake into passing NATFEAT. Meadowlark (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kenai Peninsula. Seems more appropriate there as a section. Not enough for establishing notability for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackened Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Blackened Recordings is not an independent entity from Metallica themselves. The origins of the record label are exclusively contained within the history of the band and their desire to want to own their own work. And this is, in fact, the sole purpose of the record label [1] (any source that exists out there discussing Blackened Recordings will likely just be a rehash of this initial announcement). It was made by Metallica, it does not sign any other artist but Metallica, and it has not released anything but work made by Metallica. It is also not similar to something like Reprise Records or Republic Records, which are whole companies with their own standout history, because Blackened Recordings has no history. And therefore, no reason to have its own page (see WP:NOPAGE). I suggest a redirect back to Metallica. λ NegativeMP1 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. λ NegativeMP1 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @NegativeMP1 I was merely adding an english translation to a page that has existed since April 2022. If you think it's unnecessary, I can also also add the German page and all translations to Articles for Deletion. Jacobspeeds2 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Metallica discography, which has nothing about this label outside mentions in tables, leaving the reader lost as to what this label is (and also has spare mention in the main article). Nathannah • 📮 22:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree Jacobspeeds2 (talk) 01:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with possible keep if additional sourcing demonstrates independent coverage. There is no reason why this should have been sent to AfD; we would never want a redlink here, and this should have been a merge proposal. I'm on the precipice of suggesting this be speedy closed and moved to a merge talkpage instead. Chubbles (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge agree with the merge to Metallica discography as this will give a better context of the subject.Villkomoses (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but I raise instead merging to simply Metallica. Since not all of their albums in their discography existed in the labels lifespan. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There are not enough notable sources for it to stand out as its own article. That being said, I think it makes sense to have this serve as a redirect to the Metallica page for those looking for it and maybe this could have its own area on the page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge . As this article lacks substantial coverage to justify notability and has appropriate target for redirect. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please specify a merge topic when !voting - Metallica discography or Metallica?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (and redirect) Given the article length and necessary context, it is reasonable in my opinion to merge the contents with Metallica. WeWake (talk) 02:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - that would be fair enough to merge to Metallica discography. --Amlikdi (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Metallica I do not think a merge to the discography article would be productive as the only mention of Blackened is in a table. The Metallica article at least includes (an admittedly short) paragraph about the label.– AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 16:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to preserve some content. Not enough material or notability for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The merge target can be decided with a merge request discussion - it doesn't look like there's a consensus on which place to merge (or people may not be paying enough attention). The question of where to merge doesn't need to keep this AfD open any longer. Chubbles (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alan Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 16:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Internet, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Illinois, New York, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No RS that discuss this person are used for sourcing. Source 15 is a RS but doesn't mention this person. I don't see any either, some primary sourcing only. The was at AfD over a decade ago, and still no RS have turned up. I don't think this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The current article is in need of a clean-up and better sourcing, but I think some alternatives to deletion per Wikipedia:ATD are appropriate and I think this nomination is premature. This profile in the Washingtonian demonstrates, at least to me, there is a chance that the subject can meet WP:GNG based on a 40-year legal career at a large public advocacy group that includes arguing in front of SCOTUS. A search on Google Scholar indicates he is published in legal journals at least more than a regular attorney. Google Scholar is the floor, not the ceiling based on his writing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In addition, he is mentioned in a number of books at the Internet Archive including books independent of him and Public Citizen. I would also recommend, should we not keep, to !redirect to Public Citizen where the guy has worked for over 40 years. The preface of "weak" is that I am in a space of quantity vs quality at this point with Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. I am very open to the possibility he is not the subject in enough of these or that the work is not so atypical as to warrant an individual article as a non-attorney.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not coverage. That short article are the real thing that mention him in any detail. There is no other WP:SECONDARY coverage that I can find that is specifically about him. And its nothing like enough. scope_creep^Talk 05:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will go through the reference and look at them in detail in the next couple of days to see what is what. scope_creep^Talk 06:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I have seen a few articles about him from reliable sources that prove notability. One of them in my quick look was the Washingtonian February 3 article "Paul Levy, the Web Bully’s Worst Enemy", which also made me laugh out loud. Collectively regular coverage in Reason and New York Times, it satisfies me. He sounds like an interesting man. He's also got my interest too. Karl Twist (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep inclined to say that he is on this side of GNG. Andre🚐 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence free !voting there I see. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets look at the references:

• Ref 1 [2] That is self-written profile. Not independent.
• Ref 2 [3] Secondary source.
• Ref 3 [4] Not about him. Its a passing mention.
• Ref 4 [5] CV. Not independent.
• Ref 5 Non-rs
• Ref 6 [6] That is a spam and will need to be removed.
• Ref 7 [7] Another passing mention.
• Ref 8 [8] Passing mention.
• Ref 9 [9] Passing mention.
• Ref 10 [10] Not independent.
• Ref 11 404
• Ref 12 [11] The docket. Non-rs
• Ref 13 [12] Not independent.
• Ref 14 [13] A short quote from him. Not independent.

The first two blocks of references, 2 non-rs, 5 not-independent, 4 passing mentions, a 404, a spam link and 1 secondary source that reads like a puff piece. This is a WP:BLP. Its states in that policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources The sources are atrocious. They are crap. There is no other way to desribe them. scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the Justia RS? It is a primary source and I saw nothing on RSP about Justia being unreliable. Many of the sources corroborating this person's existence are court dockets. And what is wrong with Washingtonian being a secondary source? "Levy, an attorney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group who has represented union dissidents" in the Michigan Law Review articles on JSTOR, "Paul Alan Levy , an attor ney with the Public Citizen Litigation Group in Washington, D.C." on the ABA Journal, his book was cited by the NLRB... Andre🚐 06:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court dockets don't prove notability. They are records of mandatory attendance and that all you can say about them. They don't confer notability and notability is not inhereted off them. There is nothing wrong with the Washingtonian source as a secondary ref. But it needs more than source to prove a person is notable. This is a WP:BLP. Not a article about some song. WP:THREE is standard here per established consensus (summer before last). 3 secondary sources will do it. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His own work doesn't towards notability unless its been reviewed and published by external reviewers (not social media). So far I've not seen any evidence to contrary that any of his work is notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the dockets (Justia) machine generated is non-rs generally. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, there's enough collectively to make the Keep grade. Looking in Google Newspapers archive the other day, there's some good usable stuff too. I can see that there was a good past attempt to make a decent article here, but it's set up wrong and some parts need to be re-written. That being said, I believe this has the making of a very good article. It just needs work. Because this is a legal-related article, it's a bit harder and for me it's a more involved kind of thing which I wish I had time for. Karl Twist (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another policy free keep !vote. Do you have WP:THREE good references that prove its notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the quality of the sources has been challenged, if you're !voting "meets WP:GNG", it would be helpful if you pointed at the best sources and explained why they're sufficient. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In its current form, as I am reading the article, I agree that the sources could be cleaned up and that there is a lot that contributes more to verifiability than significance. That said, the Washingtonian source, combined with sufficient academic and legal analysis of his work available online (for example, by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and other references in the current article), dissuades me from believing it is not noteworthy. Many cases that he has represented (and are cited here) are notable, and while that needs to be discounted for his passing mention, there are many of those examples that do end up adding up. WeWake (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've asked two attorney's on Wikipedia for a view for a clearer consensus. scope_creep^Talk 10:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to an attorney. He thinks the subject is notable and he gave me a very good reason why he thinks the subject is notable, which has cleared the way for me. I suspect the article will be full of references from obits when the man dies. Time waits for all folk on Wikipedia. Nomination Withdrawn as keep scope_creep^Talk 13:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep:—appreciate the extra fact-finding. I am wondering if you might be inclined to share what you discovered, whether aspects originally missed or not covered in these discussions, that motivated the withdrawal. Cheers! WeWake (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the vast majority of sources are reliable sources. A few references can be cut out, but overall the subject has significant coverage. While it's not policy and just my personal opinion, he passes my standards, because he's done enough for the legal community. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Young New Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. No charting or reviews exist. Edit: I suggest redirecting to YNW Melly discography. मल्ल (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. मल्ल (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - there's a review from HotNewHipHop. I added another source. I can't find charting info, but a review and a couple of other reliable sources should be worth a weak keep. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to YNW Melly discography Delete: No awards, no charting, no certified gold, not notable outside of the artist. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect the two sources provided only state the album was produced by the artists while in jail. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to YNW Melly discography. Most sources are announcements of the album. Notability of it is not established for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to YNW Melly discography. No WP:SIGCOV. Medxvo (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the company's regional presence, it lacks coverage from multiple reliable sources Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hopkinkse (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:N and WP:V. It has reliable coverage as well. [14][15][16][17][18] There are many more secondary, passing mentions of the subject and other sources available. It (the article) definitely needs some work on the references and details. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Notability of this chain is not established. More indepth coverage of the orgnaization would help. Don't think it meets WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel María García (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not quite pass WP:SPORTCRIT and a cursory search yielded nothing useful for WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Paraguay. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Article was created in a rush when García was announced for Indy NXT - that program's fell through since. Local coverage exists but is mostly WP:ONEEVENT. Fails GNG. MSport1005 (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I'm able to find one source [19] by RACER, and one by the Paraguayan Automobile and Touring club [20], although that is probably not independent. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks notability and RSes to support inclusion. Therefore, it should not be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - How extensive of a WP:BEFORE search has been done of Spanish-language sources? This subject seems somewhat unlikely to meet the WP:GNG, but TC2000 is a fairly prominent national championship that may attract local coverage. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per WP:NMOTORSPORT, "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a motorsport figure if they are: [...] A driver, rider, or co-driver who has won any of the following events overall: a round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship, Stock Car Brasil, or Super GT." García has won a round of TC2000, which qualifies to that criteria. Other news articles that mention him can be seen here, here and here. His move to Indy NXT failing doesn't mean his previous carreer is insignificant. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  García has won a round of TC2000's 2nd division – not a "primarily-professional series of significant national importance". His best finish in the big championship is 10th from just four starts. MSport1005 (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, hadn't realized that was the second division. I'll strike my message. Thanks, Coeusin (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Coverage not significant. Notability is not established for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Araújo (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unneeded two-item dab page. PROD was contested for some inexplicable reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, there's no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Igor Araújo should be moved to Igor Araújo (fighter) and DAB should be at basename.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortizesp (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Ortizesp (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AFD.
• Oppose, per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Barr Theo (talk • contribs)
• Comment: @Ortizesp:, @Barr Theo:. Please sign your comments next time. No opinion on the AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the martial artist is indeed the primary topic (see pageviews), and that means the dab page should be deleted per WP:ONEOTHER. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:ONEOTHER Ivey (talk - contribs) 03:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The fighter is the primary name. Hatnotes should be enough. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Typing the name provides only 2 options. This disambiguation page seems redundant when only 2 choices pop up. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboard (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating page for deletion through AfD after a contested PROD. This page fails WP:NSONG as it is not the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" — the editor who objected to the PROD has suggested the article should be kept because it "was a hit for at least 2 artists" and it "charted in at least 2 countries", but neither of those are qualifications for keeping an article.

Before the PROD was contested, this article merely contained chart information and song credits, neither of which being considered coverage of the song. Of the four sources added after the contestation:

• Schmusa seems to be an obituary of Farian which only mentions the song
• Schlagerprofis seems to be a self-published source, as their "About us" page only lists Stephan Imming as their "team", and most articles on the site (including this one) are written by him
• Bravo is an interview with Schnier, which is obviously not independent
• Die Chronik der Zdf-Hitparade is the best bet of this song being notable, but even then it's only one source and the song gets just one paragraph in a much larger piece

I have also conducted a check myself per WP:BEFORE to no avail. Thus, unless another source with sufficient, independent coverage of the song is found and added, this article should be deleted. Leafy46 (talk) 04:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leafy46 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A quick Google News search for both versions provides basically nothing. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 21:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be a bit hard in Google News. The song is about 47 years old. Karl Twist (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, the song was a hit for two Deutsch recording acts. It was a hit twice in Germany plus a hit in Sweden. I just discovered that it was also a hit in the Netherlands!
  You should know that with German hits, there's not much of the paperwork that we can access from Western countries. But believe me, just because you can't find it via Google in a short or slightly longer period, doesn't mean it's not notable. That being the case, much of the German and other European countries stuff on Wikipedia would have to be taken down.
• Keep 2601:940:C100:7AF0:4071:2BB1:F7C4:88F6 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboard by Frank Farian, Stefan Klinkhammer, Roland Kaiser, Hans-Ulrich Weigel

Act	Release	Catalogue	Country	Yr	Chart peak	duration
Copains	"Skateboard (Uh-Ah-Ah)" / "Rolling Skateboard"	Hansa International 11 512 AT	Deutschland	1977	38	7 weeks[1]
Copains	"Skateboard (Uh-Ah-Ah)" / "Rolling Skateboard"	Hansa International 11 512 AT	Sverige	1977	17	3 weeks[2]
Benny Schnier	"Skateboard (Uh-Ah-Ah)" / "Daniela, Was Nun?"	Hansa 11 397 AT	Deutschland	1977	40	10 weeks[3]
Benny & Copains	"Skateboard" / "Rolling Skateboard"	Hansa International 11 512 AT	Netherlands	1977	8	6 Weeks[4]

Regards Karl Twist (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Karl Twist: I do appreciate you taking the time to put together a table regarding this song's history. However, you have also just exemplified my point in this AfD discussion: saying that there is a lack of accessible, published information on a song goes directly against both WP:NSONG and the general notability guidelines, and strongly suggests that this song is not notable enough for a page. Saying that the song deserves an article because "it was a hit", at least in the way that it is framed here, is original research as you are trying to assert a position to which no reliable sources exist. Similarly, suggesting that "much of the German and other European countries stuff on Wikipedia would have to be taken down" is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument which is tangential to this discussion.

I understand that you are trying to argue that there *is* a wealth of information regarding this song in the real world and that it simply is not reflected in this article's sourcing, but the sources which you added after objecting to a PROD (assuming that it was a best effort to prove this song's notability) do not support that assertion. Please take comfort in knowing that most songs do not end up with individual Wikipedia pages; they tend to end up on artist or discography pages, where chart information like the ones you found can still be reflected. And I certainly agree that there are plenty of song articles with tenuous-at-best sourcing. However, I hope you understand why I've decided to nominate this article for deletion, and why simply saying that "it was a hit in multiple countries" doesn't cut it for me. Leafy46 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Leafy46, please don't try to twist around my words and using the term exemplified to say that I have supported your case by what I said. It appears to mislead. FYI, I only quickly put together the article. I forgot all about it until you swooped in on it. I haven't done that much research on it. And two of the refs that I put in after the PROD was so that it didn't look that bare. I wasn't using the one-liner to prove notability. Admittedly the other two I put in were to go to improve it to support. I think from memory they were these two,
  * schlagerprofis.de, 24/01/2024 - FRANK FARIAN: Duett-Kumpel aus Anfangszeit mit „LES COPAINS“ ebenfalls verstorben - by Stephan Imming
  and
  * Die Chronik der Zdf-Hitparade, By Andreas Tichler · 2020 - - ISBN:9783967991611, 396799161X - AUSGABE vom 06.03.1978

  .. .. .. Anyway, The song has been performed nationally three times at least,
  * Musikladen / disco / HITPARADE / Beat-Club - HITPARADE Nr. 102, 06.03.1978, Benny Schnier - Skateboard (Cover, Skateboard (Uh-ah-ah) - Copains (Frank Farian))
  * Musikladen / disco / HITPARADE / Beat-Club - HITPARADE Nr. 104, 01.05.1978, Benny Schnier - Skateboard (Cover, Skateboard (Uh-ah-ah) - Copains (Frank Farian))
  * HeinerJaeger channel, Jan 10, 2013 -Benny (Schnier) - Skateboard (ZDF-Hitparade vom 06.03.1978) (video)

  Due to my having things on away from here, that need my attention as well as finishing off and editing some stuff here on Wikipedia, I'm not going to spend a great amount of time researching and my German is not good. As most of us would think, Germans like music, things like magazines and stuff we here in the Western countries do. If a song that charted four times in three different countries with three different entries didn't have paperwork, it would be an exception to the rule!
  Karl Twist (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A note to closing admin. May I please ask that if this discussion leans towards a delete, rather than deleting it, could we please look at redirecting the page to Benny Schnier? That way we can preserve the page history as well.
  Thanks. Regards Karl Twist (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find sourcing about this song, and the article presents none. Charting is an indication of notability, not a "free pass" to get an article. We need sourcing that talks about this song, none have been presented in this discussion. Some brief mentions, not quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Based on a very cursory look, this appears to have enough sourced coverage of the cultural reception to this song. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could I ask you to clarify what you mean by "cultural reception" here? I have also previously broken down why most of the sources used in this article, even if they are used to add information, are not reliable or otherwise usable for the sake of proving notability (in the case of artist interviews). Leafy46 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, more searching has nrought up this link below,
  * Trust, nr 95 / 04 August/September 2002 - "skateboard dancin, The History of skaterock"
  According to the magazine, the song was on the top 100 songs of all time (Germany) and has been a phone ringtone. It's had a wider influence than I initially realized. It has been covered by a multitude of bands including a punk band Disaster Area. And in this book below,
  * Vintage Skaterock - Vintage Skaterock Book - Skateboard Music of the 1960s and 1970s The first book ever about skateboard music
  I thought it was just Benny's version that was written about in it. But other versions are there too. Now as I said previously, this song would be the exception if it wasn't written about. With multiple charting, plus at least four compilation albums containing the song that have charted, this is a highly regarded and widely known song in Europe. There was something else I had to say but I've forgotten atm.
  Karl Twist (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Trust is not a "magazine", per se, rather it's a fanzine per its own admission on its website. This makes it, by definition, a self-published source (as it is not professional or official publication). I do admit, though, that the Vintage Skaterock Book could be promising, though without actually being able to see the book's contents it's hard to say whether or not this particular song gets anything more than a passing mention — the website says that the book contains "background information about the artist, the song, [and] the record", but this could be something as short as a release year and recording date or something as long as a full article. I will leave it up to the admin who closes this discussion whether or not they'll allow it. Leafy46 (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply, Well, collectively we see the undeniable evidence. Looking in Google News, I found this article by Stern magazine,
  * Stern, 23. August 2021 - Article:Skateboard Uh-Ah-Ah
  Even though the above is just a paragraph about the song, the fact that they named the article after the song, is proof that it is wide-spread. There's also the below book,
  * Kultur - Interdisziplinäre Zugänge, Edited by Frank Hillebrandt, Franka Schäfer, Hubertus Busche, Thomas Heinze, 2018 - ISBN:9783658210502, 3658210508 - Page 119
  The below book covers more and has the lyrics,
  * Dogtown und X-Games – die wirkliche Geschichte des Skateboardfahrens
  Körper, Räume und Zeichen einer Bewegungspraktik zwischen Pop- und Sportkultur, By Eckehart Velten Schäfer (2020) - ISBN:9783839450963, 3839450969 - Page 246 - 247 (Note: Page 247 unviewable)
  And as for the below,
  * Dr. Skaterock's Vintage Skaterock: Skateboard Music of the 1960's and 1970's, ISBN:ISBN 10: 300040953X ISBN 13: 9783000409530 - at Amazon, there'll be more mention than you or I thought because in addition to the versions by Benny and Copains, Kjell Vidars who recorded a version are in the book too. So are Leif Bloms who recorded their version.

  During the 1970s, it was covered by Leif Bloms - Vem Får Din Sång Top TORS 2209 (1979); Kjell Vidars - "Skateboard" / "Wipe Out" Snowflake Music CLS 1001 (and a double-sided Stakeboard on Mariann MSN-151); and Đorđi Peruzović - "Opet Skupa Ti I Ja" / "Tri Mice Mace "Grupa Rock"", Jugoton SY 23547 (1979), most of whom I believe released it as a single. I believe there were more.
  ... And as for that German punk band Disaster Area who covered the song and had it released as a single, I found another review, but I have to retrace my steps as I didn't save it. It was more favorable, and I couldn't work out if their version was a "summer hit" or was predicted to be a "summer hit".
  ~sigh~ I need a cup of tea!
  Regards Karl Twist (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, you've proven that the song exists, but every source above (except for the Vintage Skaterock book, with the stipulation as previously mentioned) only provides passing mentions. I'm not denying that this song has had an impact on a particular niche, but my concern is that almost none of the sources brought up in this discussion present significant coverage (as is required at WP:GNG); after all, most of their mentions are only 1-2 sentences in a larger piece, and can all be boiled down to essentially "this song was recorded by Benny and became popular in the German Skateboarding scene" — information which could easily be merged into the newly-created article on Benny Schnier.

I do concede, at the very least, that there is certainly a good number of different sources which mention this song; yet, if German sources have this little to say cumulatively about a German song, then I maintain my original point for having created this AfD discussion. However, if you could find that review, which should theoretically count as the second source with independent coverage where the song is its subject (in addition to the Vintage Skaterock book), then I'd be willing to change my view to a weak keep. Leafy46 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You're forgetting to address the book below,
* Dogtown und X-Games – die wirkliche Geschichte des Skateboardfahrens
Körper, Räume und Zeichen einer Bewegungspraktik zwischen Pop- und Sportkultur, By Eckehart Velten Schäfer (2020) - ISBN:9783839450963, 3839450969 - Page 246 - 247 (Note: Page 247 unviewable)
It has a third of the page (page 246) dedicated to the song, lyrics and all. And more than likely, some of page 247.

And with Stern magazine,
* Stern, 23. August 2021 - Fox Mia 2.0 auf nährbarem Batterieboden, Skateboard Uh-Ah-Ah
The article takes the name of the song. It also explains a bit about the song which introduces the reader to the rest of the content. The cultural impact of the song is that it is used to describe or represent the culture of the skateboard.
Now this article about Benny by Gute Laune TV says that Benny's album Die Hits von Gestern und auch Heut’ (The Hits of Yesterday and Today), contains newly recorded versions of his hits such as "Amigo Charly Brown" and "Skateboard (Uh-Ah-Ah)", which have been in the Ballermann charts for weeks. So, it seems that in addition to two artists having hits with it, also charting four times in at least three different countries during the 1970s, it has appeared to have made the charts yet again in 2006!

A question we should ask ourselves is, with the song "Get Up and Boogie" by Silver Convention, a notable song, or "Lady Bump" by Penny McLean who was with Silver Convention, had they only been hits in Germany, would these notable and fun songs have much accessible info today via Google?
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am not forgetting Dogtown, lyrics do not count as content (given that they fall under an indiscriminate collection of information if included per WP:NOTLYRICS) and there is no analysis given on the lyrics. As far as I can tell, the book only gives one sentence of prose which explains that the song was recorded by Benny, big in the German skateboarding niche, and was based on a Copains song.

2) Stern is pretty much a picture-perfect example of a passing mention. The song gets one sentence in the opening, and that's it; the article as a whole has nothing to do with Benny, let alone the song.

3) Which article by Gute Laune TV? I don't see anything linked, but it could help with notability if I could see it.

4) That's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument. Whether those songs are notable or not has nothing to do with whether this song is notable. Further, the fact that there are so few mentions of this song in German-language sources (as there are no restrictions for German publications to use Google) serves to demonstrate why this song is not notable. Leafy46 (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - 1) Yes with Dogtown und X-Games on page 246, it appears to be a sentence at the beginning of the section and then the lyrics are at the end of the section and continue to page 247 which unfortunately is unavailable for preview. But it's not just lyrics, is it? Anyway, it would be nice to see what's on page 247. And yes as you say, "and was based on a Copains song", but it's the same song. It's their version of it.
2) Actually Stern has two sentences. Yes, it's only a small part of the article but again I say that brief explanation about the song is the intro to the article. And the article is named after the song. The song is a representation of Skateboarding Culture.
3) Sorry about that. I forgot to put in the link for the Gute Laune TV article. Here it is below, * Gute Laune TV - "Programm, BENNY SCHNIER"
So the article mentions "the party versions of "Amigo Charly Brown" and "Skateboard (Uh-Ah-Ah)", which have already been in the Ballermann charts for weeks", nearlly 40 years after it first charted.
4) I disagree. This is a case of a record that charted in 3 countries at least 4 times. Unfortunately, it only charted in Germany, Sweden and Austria AFAIK. Sadly, no Western countries. If more German, Swedish and Dutch pop magazines were uploaded to Google and the Internet Archive, we'd see a lot more.

The below book has a paragraph about the song and also explains (seems to) that producer Frank Farian was the singer on the Copains version.
* Die Chronik der Zdf-Hitparade
Die Ära Dieter Thomas Heck von 1969-1984, By Andreas Tichler · 2020 - ISBN: 9783967991611, 396799161X - Die Chronik der Zdf-Hitparade - Google Books Page 281 "AUSGABE 102 vom 06.03.1978"
This skating website, Skate and Annoy explains the significance of the song.
* Skate and Annoy, October 15th, 2010 - Skateboard, Uh ah ah. – Posted by: Kilwag (editor)

I have found more artists that have covered the song. Some have it as A sides of a single, some have it as a B side. Then there's a whole lot of those bigger German MOR bands of the 70s and 80s that have it on an LP.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I forgot to add the below
* Schmusa.de, 5 Jan 2022 - "Donnerstag ist BRAVO-Tag, 1/1978"
It's about the The Bravo Music Box. The part here: "Platz 4 belegte Benny mit “Skateboard Uh-ah-ah” und auf der 5 gab es “Himbeereis zum Frühstück” mit Hoffmann & Hoffmann." Translated, it says "Benny took fourth place with "Skateboard Uh-ah-ah," and Hoffmann & Hoffmann's "Raspberry Ice Cream for Breakfast" took fifth place."
Then below is something that mentions the song in more depth. It's a German online music magazine. I'm not sure how I came across it.
* Smago.de, 15. Februar 2016 - BENNY smago! Serie "Schlager-Rückblick "vor 40 Jahren" von Stephan Imming – Teil 50: Benny – "Amigo Charly Brown"!

Just a word about Schlagerprofis. OK, regarding the "FRANK FARIAN: Auch sein Duo-Kumpel aus alten Zeiten ist tot – Hit dank ROLAND KAISER" article, you said: "Schlagerprofis seems to be a self-published source". Well, I had a look on de.wikipedia.org, and it's used many times as a reference source, as per.
Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm just going to stop responding here, partially because I'm worried that I'm beginning to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion, and partially because I feel like we're going in a circle. You post a lot of links containing short mentions of this song, and I comment that I don't believe said mentions constitute notability because they are from unreliable sources (e.g. Skate and Annoy above, as a blog/zine, or Schlagerprofis, whose use in Wikipedia articles doesn't guarantee its reliability), they only give a sentence or two about the song in a passing mention, if not even less (e.g. Gute Laune TV or Smago.de, which only give brief mentions of the song in a larger biography about Benny, and don't establish enough information to suggest this song shouldn't be merged into the article for Benny), or they are based on a "trust me, I'm sure that there's more" sort of reasoning (e.g. Dogtown und X-Games and the Vintage Skaterock book).

I am certain that, by now, we have gone through the full extent of applicable published materials on this song, and the argument that the song should still have an article because there could be more information "if more German, Swedish, and Dutch pop magazines were uploaded to Google" is, in my mind, irrelevant (per WP:GNG, particularly "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability."). Frankly, I'm quite confused by the repeated assertion that Germany is not a "Western country" and thus paperwork on this song should naturally be expected to be scarce, but I digress. I rest my case, and leave the ultimate decision to anyone else who comes along or the admin who ultimately closes this discussion. Leafy46 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. While I do respect you for your efforts, I still strongly disagree with your assessment of the situation. I don't douby that you've given much of your time to improve and add to Wikipedia. Perhaps on another article we can work together or in the same direction. Anyway, World Radio History is an amazing site. So helpful and brimful of info.
* They've got Billboard, Cash Box, Record World for the US and more! And for Canada, there's RPM Weekly. Sadly, there's hardly much about music on the European continent. There's Euro Tip Sheet and Music & Media. Unfortunately, the year for those pub's only starts at 1984.
* On the Internet Archive site, the Bravo mags are just one per year. There's Billboard, Cash Box etc. on the site but AFAIK and AFAICS, there's not much in the way of Euro stuff.

I hope that someday we'll get access to those European publications. Regards

Karl Twist (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nobody would entertain deleting a top ten hit in the United States. KaisaL (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• See Oaktree b above. Charting is an *indication* of notability, but not an automatic free pass for it. Leafy46 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The song made the charts. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parbad Kali Mandir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article on a temple does not satisfy general notability with its current references, and has been moved to article space after being declined at AFC, and then was moved to draft space and back to article space twice. Review of the sources shows that they are not independent.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Jagran (in Hindi)	About renovation of the temple. Appears to be an interview between the news and the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	Youtube (in Hindi)	Youtube	Probably not	Don't know	No	No
3	www.livehindustan.com	About renovation of the temple. Reads like a release from the template.	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
4	hindi.news18.com	News article about the significance and popularity of the Kali Temple in Deoghar	No	Yes, just barely.	Yes	No
5	www.livehindustan.com	About the history of the temple. Appears to have been written by the temple.	No	Yes	Yes	No

Better sources probably can be found, but the article is still not ready for article space.

• Draftify as nominator, to be moved into article space ONLY by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Jharkhand. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would like to formally express my opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. I believe that this temple holds significant historical, cultural, and religious importance, and deserves to be included on Wikipedia. While the sources currently cited may not meet the ideal reliability standards, I am in the process of gathering additional, more authoritative references that can help demonstrate its notability.

  The temple is not only an important religious site for the local community, but it also holds cultural significance, and I am confident that better sources can be found to back these claims. The current sources, while they may appear promotional or limited in scope, offer a starting point. I am more than willing to contribute further to the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

  I kindly request that the deletion be reconsidered, and the article be allowed to remain in article space while I work on improving the content and references. Additionally, I would be open to collaborating with other editors to strengthen the article’s foundation and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

  Thank you for your understanding and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can you explain how this is an interview? Yes, there is an accompanying news video that involves interviewing someone, but the news article itself doesn't appear to be an interview. And it is explicitly about the history of the temple. Silverseren^C 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to express deep concern and strong opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. This temple is not just a structure of stone; it represents the heart and soul of a community that holds it dear. For those who are connected to it, Parbad Kali Mandir is a place of spiritual importance, cultural richness, and historical significance.

It deeply saddens me to see that such a meaningful and revered place might be erased from the pages of Wikipedia due to issues of notability. Parbad Kali Mandir is more than just a local landmark—it is a symbol of devotion, a living history that has shaped generations. This temple has been a site of prayer, peace, and reflection for countless people, and its significance goes far beyond what is easily captured in a few sources.

I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable and independent sources, but the cultural weight this temple carries in the region is undeniable. The lack of independent, scholarly articles on it does not diminish its true value. To erase this article would not just be the deletion of a page, but the erasure of a piece of history that holds deep emotional and spiritual ties for so many.

I sincerely ask for your compassion and understanding. Rather than deletion, I urge you to allow this article to remain in article space. With the support of the Wikipedia community, this entry can be improved, expanded, and enriched to meet the required standards, all while preserving the essence of what makes Parbad Kali Mandir so important to so many.

Please reconsider, and let the memory of this sacred site live on, not just for those who know it, but for future generations to understand its significance.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find additional news sources (or published books) covering the temple in Hindi or just other Indian news sources we were unable to find, that would be helpful. Silverseren^C 16:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or Delete. I was the second AFC reviewer for this page. I declined the draft because of no significant coverage just as it was declined by previous AFC reviewer. Sources were poor and unreliable. Creator then moved the draft to mainspace without following up on feedback. It was reverted but the creator moved it back again to mainspace. I still do not see any improvement to pass notability. If draftied, I would suggest a move lock. RangersRus (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you address and explain the sources more directly then, RangersRus? Because the table up above seems incorrect in multiple aspects and I don't see anything about the sources being "poor and unreliable". Could you explain what you mean by that? As they seem like normal news articles about a location. Silverseren^C 00:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Youtube is unreliable and live hindustan reliability is questionable. Jagran and News18 are poor with no reliable significant coverage. Jagran article is on renovation of the temple and need for 1 crore rupee for it. News18 disclaimer for the story based on legends, says "The information given in this news has been written after talking to astrologers and acharyas on the basis of zodiac sign, religion and scriptures. Any incident, accident or profit or loss is just a coincidence. Information from astrologers is in everyone's interest. Local-18 does not personally endorse anything stated." One of the livehindustan article is also on same legends and mythology, and these news also reads like "Paid news and undisclosed advertorials" per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per AFC reviewers, if the editor thinks they can improve it then draftspace is the right place for it. I agree that it's not yet ready for mainspace but that better sources, if they can be found, would do the trick. Meadowlark (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Not yet ready for mainspace. Though I will say an IP made the page. Who's draft space would this go to? Ramos1990 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ramos1990, draftspace doesn't belong to anyone - it'll just be Draft:Pardbad Kali Mandir, and anyone can work on it. IPs create and submit drafts all the time! Meadowlark (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah I see. Thank you very much for explaining that! Ramos1990 (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Niche NGO/political party with next to no visibility/recognition. If it is a party, there is no info on any elected officials or even elections it participated it. Fails WP:NORG/WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The movement is an existing, formally established and growing association with social media presence. Other countries’ chapters of Volt, including the niche ones in the startup phase, have their own pages on Wikipedia. The argument that the association is not publicly well-known hence the article should be deleted is arbitrary.

It is not yet a formally established party, hence you unnecessarily expect elected officials, but neither are Volt chapters of other countries with their own Wikipedia webpages, operating as associations. Check the main page of Volt for further details. Daeheung (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not arbitrary, read WP:GNG. If similar or even less notable "start up" chapters have their own article - they need to be cleaned up as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then unless you clean up all small chapters of Volt, in fact being active registered associations, by your arbitrary argument of being unrecognized by wider public, you cannot clean up solely Volt Poland. Daeheung (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (Side note: article also being currently discussed in deletion context on pl wiki at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2025:04:25:Volt Polska). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for you, although from my standpoint this creates a pattern of arbitral inconsistency since there's other national chapters of Volt also operating as associations and not yet parties with their own Wiki pages. The article is going to be recreated anyway once the association registers as a party. "Other stuff exists" refers to comparisons understood in a wider sense than literal corresponding chapters of the same multinational organization. Daeheung (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be deleted again if there is no WP:SIGCOV-meeting sources. Not all entities registered as parties are notable. Only the "important" ones. As for inconsistency, sure. Folks spam articles on Wikipedia trying to promote niche concepts, we keep deleting them, but it takes time to clean up spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:ATD is a redirect to Volt Europa. Curbon7 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existing political party nominated for deletion? What is this? Multiple people worked on creation of hundreds of political parties from election pages, this is nonsense.--ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vyry bus–train collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. The only lasting coverage I can find is where it's described in one paragraph in an article about train collisions (in Ukrainian). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ukraine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 13 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not all coverage may be in English. I would suggest searching for articles in Ukrainian. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I linked a Ukrainian source in my nomination statement as the closest I could find to significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see WP:LASTING. Did this make an impact on something notable? Many of these incidents do not need their own page. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Jalaun district bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Uttar Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 22+ people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:LASTING. It did not lead to a notable impact in say regualtions or stuff like this. I am also thinking of WP:NOTNEWS. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. I'm unable to find significant lasting coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Ghana. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 19 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of passing WP:NEVENT. Systemic bias is an essay and it is not an excuse to ignore our notability guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:LASTING. Stuff like this is reported daily, but not enough to establish notability of the event or for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NECAT Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notable only on local level; promotional content; sources link to official website. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cannot find a viable reditect. Content is local and the network does not have much coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fan article on ultra obscure band. No social media, no streaming. Note tag. Refs are profiles and interviews. Nothing of significance. Fails WP:NBAND. scope_creep^Talk 21:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Skynxnex (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They are a punk band and so not necessarily going to be on the major streaming services or active on the social media platforms owned by big tech companies, but they in fact are on Bandcamp and have a Facebook page from when it was common for bands to use that. I've added more sources, there is independent coverage of them in multiple significant publications and platforms for the genre such as The Quietus, The Wire, Vice, Bandcamp Daily, Maximum Rocknroll, and by notable music journalist Everett True. Lewishhh (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several respectable sources, deletion seems unnecessary. They are mentioned on other pages such as Hardcore punk in the United Kingdom and La Vida Es Un Mus. Seems like a necessary addition to help address gender balance/heteronormative focus in the punk music inclusion on Wikipedia. Coagulanti (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. Editor is a WP:SPA scope_creep^Talk 18:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about it makes no sense? Coagulanti (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in other articles doesn't make the band notable. Addressing gender balance/heteronormative focus, whatever that is, has zero to to do with notability. scope_creep^Talk 09:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like you not understanding than it not making sense. https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=5g&lang=en&q=Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia#Gender_bias_in_content

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=5g&lang=en&q=Heteronormativity Coagulanti (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - since new sources have been added since nom, here's a source assessment table for those:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Wire (1)			Passing mention	✘ No
Hippolyte	Selling tickets to movie with band's music	No editorial oversight	Artist listing	✘ No
Vice Italy			~ Four sentences; some good info but very minimal	~ Partial
Bandcamp article		consensus on RSN	~ Very brief mention	✘ No
Collapse Board		Appears to have editorial oversight from relative experts based on FAQ	~ Actual discussion of the band/music is extremely brief	~ Partial
The Wire (2)			Paywalled source	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Meadowlark (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to La Vida Es Un Mus - the sources with the most coverage are very brief and in my opinion don't add up to passing NMUSIC or GNG. Meadowlark (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to La Vida Es Un Mus (the record label). Based on the source assessment, I don't think it meets notability standards. Not enough for the band to have their own article. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U2 Clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Defunct non notable clothing brand, lacking significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources on the page or elsewhere. No information at WP:CORPDEPTH per the WP:NCORP guidelines. Tagged for 18 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Hong Kong. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Has not existed for a few years. Aka G2000 and founded by Michael Tien.— Maile (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2025 (UTC)/[reply]

  Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. What about a redirect to Michael Tien or G2000? DCsansei (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be okay with me. — Maile (talk) 18:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to G2000, easy NOPAGE decision, maybe retarget it later to Michael Tien if G2000 isn't notable either, but no need to deal with that now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to G2000 (with the history preserved under the redirect), per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to G2000. Not seeing notability from sources, which are not really there either. G2000 is not that good either, but at least we can consolidate some of this. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Moharran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database mention I could find was from [24], noting that while Moharran participated in the Olympics, nothing else is currently known about him. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. Let'srun (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diving at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre platform – As WP:ATD, where he is mentioned. I'm also not opposed to redirect to United Arab Republic at the 1960 Summer Olympics#Diving as adopted in similar recent AfDs. Svartner (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the above target. His name is actually Ahmed Moharram, and he does have coverage to an extent in Al-Ahram. I stand by the idea that Olympic competitors should be notable, since their careers are always covered, even if it is in sources that the average person cannot access, but in this case a redirect seems fair until that coverage can actually be found, since so far what I have seen in contemporary, Arabic sources does not meet the threshold. Canadian Paul 19:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's add this to the list of people for whom the name on Olympedia was wrong. FOARP (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nothing in Arabic under احمد مهران (similar to English) FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diving at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre platform. Not much in the article at all. Notability is not established. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diving at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre platform per WP:ATD. As to the variation in spelling, this is very common in transliterations and the above sneer is not warranted. Ingratis (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database mention I could find was from [25], noting that while Hassan participated in the Olympics and won a Bronze metal at the 1959 Mediterranean Games, nothing else is currently known about him. Note that this is a different person than the more well known Hassan Moustafa. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Egypt. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diving at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre platform – As WP:ATD, where he is mentioned. I'm also not opposed to redirect to United Arab Republic at the 1960 Summer Olympics#Diving as adopted in similar recent AfDs. Svartner (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Can our Egypt Olympics expert, @Canadian Paul:, find anything on this or Ahmed Moharran? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I had done a little research on both of these competitors very recently and could not find much, even in terms of routine coverage. One issue is that Ahmed Moharran is actually Ahmed Moharram, so it is possible that Moustafa Hassan has some errors in the name as well. I stand by the idea that Olympic competitors should be notable, since their careers are always covered, even if it is in sources that the average person cannot access. In this case, however, I think that by Wikipedia's policies, a redirect for both is fair until that coverage can actually be found, since so far what I have seen does not meet the criteria. Canadian Paul 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is yet another example of Olympedia being a bad source. FOARP (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nothing in Arabic about a diver with that name FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Diving at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's 10 metre platform. Not much here either. Definitly not enough for their own article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to Learn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I apologise in advance to participants, as this is going to be a tricky one to research, as "ready to learn" is going to find many unrelated pages. The page subject, however, is a zero-tolerance behaviour policy for schools including a one page template document describing it. It was invented at Henbury school, Bristol (now Blaise High School) which page does not mention it. It was used by a few other schools, but not researched or written about in secondary sources, with the one exception of a BBC 2 documentary [26] which is a good source, although the programme was generally about schools (part of a series) and this just happened to be used in one of them. It raised some local controversy in schools that used the system, so there are a couple of news reports, but the reporting would fall foul of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The article itself is full of WP:OR, but the question is not whether the article will do, but rather whether these (or other sources I have been unable to find) would give us multiple secondary sources from which we could write an encyclopaedic article about the system. Many schools have such systems, and personally I doubt there is anything notable about this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the topic seems like it has a decent shot at notability. This looks like another potential source. As do this and this from another publication. And here's one more. -- Avocado (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I think this is borderline notable as it seems like a behavioral policy standard. It has a few documentaries on it and some news coverage as controversial. Cannot think of a redirect as an alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notability demonstrated by sources posted above by Avocado. ~Kvng (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A longtime redirect to Oneok (for former Oneok chairman and CEO J.D. "Scotty" Scott) was hijacked as an WP:ADMASQ page for an Iowa deputy sheriff's self-published novel. The book is not notable, and beyond a human-interest story in his local newspaper I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV that would qualify for a pass of WP:GNG. I would have just restored the redirect but it was previously contested, so in the absence of passing WP:N I'm seeking an AfD consensus to restore the redirect to Oneok. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Police, and Iowa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect (possibly also revdel the content that is a contender for G11 to keep it from being restored easily). Delete I cannot find any additional sources to support notability, doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Likely autobiography. Schazjmd (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete; Dclemens1971's point below motivated me to check for other possible redirect targets. Besides Oneok, plausible targets include JD Scott, Scott Brothers Global, List of New South Wales representative cricketers, WJBC (AM), The Movement (literature), List of Oxford University Cricket Club players...I stopped looking at that point. Too many and none clearly the primary target, so deletion seems better than redirect. Schazjmd (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect I was in a half-way house doing this, went away to water plants and came back and its done. I planning to redirect and leave a warning but its done now. scope_creep^Talk 20:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a Wikipedia page titled J. D. Scott should redirect to the company Oneok simply because a former CEO was named "Scotty Scott" is, frankly, ridiculous. Wikipedia is not owned or dictated by corporate entities, and a company does not gain perpetual rights over a personal name—especially one as common as J. D. Scott—based solely on a former executive's nickname.

More importantly, the previous version of the J. D. Scott page referred to a legitimate author, complete with reliable sources, and was improperly deleted to reinstate a redirect that serves no encyclopedic purpose. The argument that the redirect was "longstanding" does not justify replacing a fact-based article about a notable individual with a misleading and irrelevant corporate redirect.

Wikipedia’s mission is to provide accurate, verifiable information—not to protect redirects rooted in corporate confusion or coincidental name overlap. The deletion of sourced content in favor of such a redirect undermines the integrity of the platform. 158.120.123.239 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with a redirect somewhere else but I am not OK with a page being hijacked to promote a non-notable author's self-published book. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably be redirected to JD Scott, who appears to be an actually notable author. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the content currently there - it's local, insignificant coverage about a cop who wrote a book. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since notability is not established. Reads like a prmotion for the author/book. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daegu Yangnyeongsi Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage. A prod was removed in 2019 with an edit summary of "There are enough sources for this to go to AfD rather than PROD", but no sources were mentioned. SL93 (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Was there a proper WP:BEFORE in the native language? Searching for "대구약령시축제" gives plenty of enough sources in Korean per the 2019 de-PRODer. For example: there are academic papers [27] [28] [29] as well as news articles [30] [31] and an entry in the Doosan Encyclopedia [32].⁂CountHacker (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly sufficient coverage in the Korean language. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Extensive and sustained coverage in Korean press, books about Korean festivals, etc. MarioGom (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Daegu#Festivals Seems like there is coverage in Korean publications. But I don't think enough for a stand alone article. May be better to move since no sources are in the article at the moment aside from official website. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Kennedy (educator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a headteacher, and have not found significant coverage to add. There are mentions of him and quotes from him in a number of newspaper articles about schools, such as BBC Wales, Herald Wales and The Pembroke and Pembroke Dock Observer, but this is not coverage about Kennedy himself. An earlier version of the article gives more details about him, but is not better sourced. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, United Kingdom, and Wales. Tacyarg (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG without enough WP:SIGCOV and only passing mentions. --hroest 20:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olchfa School (his school). Not seeing him as notable in the sources. I don't see him passing as WP:NPROF. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Trail (Wisconsin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. Sources cited are the "rock trail coalition" (a local volunteer group) and a database listing. WP:BEFORE turns up a number of murders along the trail at various times, but nothing conferring notability. — Moriwen (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article was recently created and I'm intending to expand it (I've been busy with college-related stuff lately and haven't been on Wikipedia as much) Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Janesville,_Wisconsin#Parks_and_recreation. Not seeing this place as notable. The arresting location source seems out of place for articles about general locations. WP:COAT. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Rosa (footballer, born 1991) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Player with few professional appearances, most for Minas Gerais state clubs in lower levels. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Villa Nova Atlético Clube (where he plays midfielder). Does not seem notable on his own. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He barely played for the club, there is no point in redirecting. Svartner (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Kamanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable political adviser and lawyer. Fails all possible notability guidelines. The sources are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE bios ([33]), affiliated sources like his university ([34]), his own writings ([35], [36]), and one source that doesn't even mention him ([37]). WP:BEFORE turns up more of the same but no WP:GNG-qualifying sources. Meanwhile, his books are WP:SELFPUBLISHED (Palmetto Publishing, CreateSpace, others, and his sole academic paper has not been cited once according to Google Scholar, so there are no WP:NBIO SNGs to hook onto here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Sierra Leone. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and my own search. Newspapers.com has nothing (though that isn't surprising), as does google scholar. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nothing to establish notability. The fellowship is awarded to 16 students to spend couple of weeks n the FASPE Law program FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not appear to be notable. Reads like a resume of a politically involved individual. Could not think of a redirect for this one. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeynep Heyzen Ateş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not seem notable. Merely translated some books. The translations also do not seem notable. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet notability WP:Notability Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• del per WP:SIGCOV. The "SWPL Manager of the Year" is an "in-house" distinction of doubtful notability effect. --Altenmann >talk 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep were any searches for sources done? I found several. BBC, Edinburgh Reporter, Edinburgh Reporter 2, BBC 2, BBC 3, BBC 4, Edinburgh News, Glaswgow World, Sky Sports Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • were any searches for sources done? Yes - Q back: were any evaluations of sources done? . The the first two of yours are about "SWPL Manager of the Year" and no in-depth coverage beyond "how great a coach he is", i.e. IMHO no SIGCOV. --Altenmann >talk 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I did a search before nominating and came to the same conclusion. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which (just about) show notability. GiantSnowman 18:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hibernian W.F.C. (team he manages). Not really notable on his own. Not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroyuki Tazawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

He played exactly one season of football, back when he was 22. There are no real sources here, and it would need multiple pieces of independent significant coverage to warrant an article. Geschichte (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no coverage that leads to failing ANYBIO or WPGNG. --Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Yokohama F. Marinos or Vegalta Sendai. Not notable on his own. Played for those teams so it seems more appropriate. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four-hundred-year solar minimum of the 21st century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:OR, cherrypicked sources. Title seems to be an invention by the article creator (or a translation from somewhere?) Article claims e.g. that the minimum will go from 2020 to 2053, and "it is expected to reduce the average global temperature by up to 1.0–1.5°C.", but the current second source[38] gives "They named the most likely scenario as a decrease in solar activity in the period up to 2100, but this will lead to only a small decrease in global temperature of about 0.08 ° C"? Url for third source is same as for second source, and first source is an editorial, not a peer-reviewed paper. I draftified the article to give a chance to correct these issues and let others have a look, but it was put back into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The plausibility and impacts of a grand solar minimum occurring in the 21st century have been discussed in the academic literature (e.g., [39], 2010; [40], 2013; [41], 2013; [42], 2015; [43], 2015), but I do not think that the coverage is WP:SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its own dedicated article. Furthermore, more recent data from solar cycle 25 suggests that this scenario is unlikely. I think mentioning a hypothesized future minimum and its impacts in Solar minimum#Grand solar minima and maxima would be sufficient. I do not think a merge would be appropriate because the current content and refs are not suitable as mentioned by Fram. A relevant quote from [44] (2025):

"While earlier studies hypothesized that solar activity could decline to levels similar to those of the Maunder Minimum (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood et al., 2011; Anet et al., 2013), more recent solar observations suggest a different trajectory. In particular, sunspot number (SSN) records for Solar Cycle 25 already exceed those of Cycle 24, indicating that solar activity is currently increasing (SIDC – Solar Influences Data Analysis Center, 2024). As such, a Dalton-like or Gleissberg-type minimum is considered more plausible in the near future."

As a side note, the first reference in the article is from Valentina Zharkova who seems to be the main source in popular media claiming that there is an upcoming grand solar minimum. Some of their work also appears to be very climate-change-denial adjacent. There is a Live Science article rebutting Zharkova's grand solar minimum: [45]. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Zharkova had a paper on this grand solar minimum retracted [46] (PubPeer link: [47]), and her past work has been highlighted not so positively in Science Alert [48] and [49], Slate [50], and Ars Technica [51]. From what I gather, this modern grand minimum is a climate change denial talking point. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge whatever is salvageable into Solar cycle 25 which already has a "Predictions" section where this will belong in case there are any peer-reviewed studies that still make such predictions. --hroest 15:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per the above. --cyclopia^speak! 10:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just delete Norlk (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 'Delete' and 'merge' are mutually exclusive. Either something can be salvaged, or it can't
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing worthwhile to merge. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Solar_cycle_25#Predictions. Though there is some sourcing, I don't think enough notability for stand alone article. Fits better as a section. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Albanian protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An ordinary protest without much lasting effects, probably fails WP:EVENT A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Albania. A1Cafel (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article is now expanded and updated. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing WP:LASTING. It is an event (series of?) that did not have much impact, based on current sources. Protests happen often and are repoted, but not enough for a stand alone article. Could not find a redirect as alternative. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMC Automotriz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Car manufacturing company that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Half of the sources cited in this article come from company's own website, while others are very short mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Venezuela. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not fully decided on the !vote, but there's quite some coverage in independent sources, especially about production issues, worker strikes, and a major acquisition operation [52][53][54][55][56][57]. Also covered in in a book about the Panama Papers [58] but I have not accessed it so not sure the extent of it. MarioGom (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's a minor car seller in Venezuela, but still significant, representing all Hyundai sells. The article needs a lot of work and has mostly primary sources. However, there are many sources showing enough coverage. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not seeing this as WP:NCORP. It is a manufacturer of multiple models, but what is it notable for? Many manufacturers of cars and car parts do not get their own article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be mindful of WP:WHATABOUT. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devdutta Manisha Baji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. I removed a ton of unsourced content but even what is left is just mentions and a lot of those are WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @CNMall41,

  Firstly, thank you for reviewing the page. Every notice is a new learning experience for me, and I have carefully gone through your comments.

  • Please forgive me if I have not used the correct Wikipedia technical terms. I usually use generic terminology to convey points, though I do try to follow Wikipedia guidelines as best as I can.

  Regarding the Devdutta article: I won't claim he is notable without basis, and though I wrote the article, I’m not approaching it with bias. I would like to present a logical, reference-based defense for my work. Beyond that, you all are the experts, and I trust your decision.

  Let me address the points one by one:

  1. WP:NEWSORGINDIA

  Since I don’t know the subject personally, I cannot confirm whether he or his production houses paid for the articles referenced. I used sources that I found available online. Therefore, I have no comment on their promotional nature. If you have any suggestions or tools to help identify whether a link is paid/promotional, that would be really helpful for my future articles.

  2. Removal of Unsourced Data

  Yes, he is also a singer. I found his name listed on the music apps I use, and also in Wikipedia film tables where he is credited for singing. However, I remember a previous admin mentioning that a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for another Wikipedia article. So, I didn’t cite them. And since platforms like Spotify or JioSaavn are not accepted as references, I couldn’t use those either. Thank you for cleaning up the unsourced information. It would be great if you could guide me on how to properly cite chartbusters or music credits.

  ----

  Defense Based on WP:NMUSICIAN

  I’ve reviewed the WP:NMUSICIAN guidelines, and I believe the subject meets the criteria for notability for the following reasons:

  a) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 2

  This mentions having a single or album on a national chart. His song “Raja Ala” from Pawankhind was a chartbuster. I’m slightly confused because, in India, songs are mostly part of film soundtracks, unlike in Hollywood where albums and movies are more separate. Still, this subject has composed music for high-budget Marathi films, and several of his songs have been popular.

  b) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 3

  This point seems a bit biased, as it references RIAA certification and Yahoo Music ratings. Indian music directors typically aren't evaluated through such systems. How, then, can Indian subjects qualify under this criterion?

  c) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 4

  Again, this seems tilted toward Western norms. Indian music directors primarily work in film, and their recognition usually comes through movie soundtracks, not necessarily through concerts. Concerts are secondary.

  d) WP:MUSICIAN - Point 5

  I believe the subject qualifies here. His music albums have been released under Zee Music, a reputed label with over 10 years in the industry. Zee itself is a well-established brand.

  e) WP:MUSICIAN - Awards (e.g., Grammy, Academy)

  This also feels biased, as these awards are region-specific. In India, we have our own recognized awards like Filmfare and state-level honors such as Nandi Awards. The subject has received several regional awards and was also nominated for Filmfare Marathi, which I’ve mentioned in the article. Therefore, I believe he satisfies this condition too.

  Finally, I’d like to share that I’m just a movie buff. With the rise of OTT platforms, language barriers have started to fade, and I’ve found myself exploring cinema beyond my native language. I initially began writing about Telugu movies, but then I found inspiration in my mentor and brother @Jayanthkumar123, who was actively contributing articles for Telugu cinema. Later, I saw @DareshMohan bro contributing valuable content for Kannada films.

  That’s when I realized there’s a real need to work on communities like Marathi, Odia, Punjabi, and Bengaliwhere even native-language contributors are very few. I wanted to help bridge that gap and bring more visibility to regional cinema and artists who truly deserve recognition.

  Regarding the issue of paid articles: it’s evident that well-established personalities or large production houses can easily pay to get featured in newspapers and portals—eventually leading to the creation of a Wikipedia article even before the film’s release.

  On the other hand, subjects who lack financial resources and media exposure often have their pages deleted for “lack of citations.” This feels like an unfortunate imbalance, and I hope we can find fairer ways to address it.

  My final input regarding this article is that the subject is notable. He has composed quality music and has several popular songs that have performed well on music apps within the Marathi industry. He is regarded as one of the top music directors in that space.

  My suggestion would be to remove any unsourced content and improve the article in alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Beyond that, I leave the final decision to the experienced editors—admins, rollbackers @Ab207, and others in the community hierarchy.

  Thank you for this opportunity to learn and grow. Every review is a valuable learning experience for me. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  >His song “Raja Ala” from Pawankhind was a chartbuster

  Please give reliable sources for this statement, as it helps to prove notability. Review [[WP:CHARTS]. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" is part of WP:NMUSICBIO — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No notability as singer or musician. As a soundtrack composer, his films doesn't seem notable and sources are unclear. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @Itzcuauhtli11

  Respecting your opinion and also defending mine — I was a bit shocked by the second statement:

  "His films don't seem notable."

  Sir, I’m sharing with you Wikipedia's own lists — List of highest-grossing Marathi films. I am neither an editor nor do I know anyone associated with editing that page. The data is clearly visible there.

  • Pawankhind – This is the 3rd highest-grossing film ever in the Marathi industry. It also appears under the highest-grossing opening weekend list.
  • Subhedar – It is listed under worldwide highest-grossing films by month.
  • Firastya – This film won multiple awards, including recognition in Sweden and Pune.

  So, we can conclude from Wikipedia itself that two of his films were among the highest grossers in the Marathi film industry.

  Coming to the song "Raja Ala":

  I searched under WP:Charts, but unfortunately couldn’t find any official music chart specifically for India. However, I’m sharing a few links which I believe may help:

  1. https://www.jiosaavn.com/featured/chartbusters-2022-marathi/CAvDksWm1rKvz,QNANKgeg__ "Raja Ala" is listed in the Top 3.
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMgVnhNpcFc 55 million views on YouTube.
  3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/marathi/movies/news/pawankhind-new-song-raja-aala-this-foot-tapping-number-featuring-santosh-juvekar-and-chinmay-mandlekar-is-definitely-a-chartbuster/articleshow/89432249.cms Again, you may argue this is paid media — but I’m sharing it for reference.
     I hope I have answered your queries. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herodyswaroop:, please stop with the AI-generated WP:WALLOFTEXT information you keep posting. It is not helpful, especially since these are not policy-based arguments and the sources you are providing are not reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Sorry sir, As my English is bit bad, I am using grammarly to correct the sentence. I would avoid that.

But I am actually going through each and every point in the Wikipedia guidelines and answering them, with utmost care. You asked for chartbuster I have provided the same. You asked for films notability, I have given the same.

Again bit surprising. if List of highest-grossing Marathi films this itself isn't reliable source, then which is ? - Herodyswaroop (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzcuauhtli11

Wikipedia: Notability (music)

• "The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc."

Response: I have mentioned notable films where the recordings were featured.

• You did not comment on the following criterion: "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)."

Response: Zee5 Music is a notable music company with over 10 years of establishment and a significant presence in the industry.

Please guide me if I am not adhering to the Wikipedia guidelines. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

- Herodyswaroop (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are still using AI to generate responses. Again, please stop. You have made your case for notability and now need to leave others to opine. Posting AI generated walls of text do NOT help your case. Also, note WP:CIR, WP:COI and WP:PAID. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Small correction, Not AI generated content, you can say AI Grammer corrected content, It took one hour to go through each point and get them done.

Wp: paid, Wp:COI, If I really get money in defending this subject, I would really be happy. Joking - Herodyswaroop (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you need an hour to generate the responses yet your edits are done quick on pages with very good competency. This is not my first rodeo. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not properly betting all of the subject's movies as notable or not.

About the 3 movies you mentioned: Firastya didn't earn major awards and Subhedar only earned ₹18 crore worldwide, which may be notable enough on a regional level, but not on a national or international ones.

Pawankhind may be notable enough on a national or international level, but I'm still not sure. That could probe notability, but it doesn't mean he deserves an article. He also needs significant coverage on independent, reliable sources.

As a singer or musician, he doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC.

As a composer, he doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:COMPOSER.

About Zee5 Music: What's its "roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable"? — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Itzcuauhtli11 @CNMall41 Sir, I am in a big confusion now. If i reply. @CNMall41 accuse me of paid editing. if I don't reply, I am getting lot of confusion. Taking the bet.

1. Sir, Marathi films are regional films and obviously,they will be highest grossers in same na sir?. How can we expect it should be highest grosser in international level.

Like Sairat movie the top-1 in marathi list, is blockbuster in Marathi,but the same is flop in telugu. And definitely not a international hit. But still it's a top movie for marathi people right?

If that is the case 98% all regional film articles would get rejected in Wiki. Because any country Or region may give a massive hit globally once Or twice.

2. Again,you claimed no awards for Firatsya. But ref clearly shows that,then why the claim of no awards.

Finally respecting @CNMall41sir advice,not dragging the context. It would be great help if sir itself goes through Zee5 label list of independently notable, as the list may go long.

- Herodyswaroop (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak KeepHe appears significant; as a composer, he has contributed to numerous distinguished films. However, the provided references are inadequate and require further support from credible sources. AndySailz (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the !vote AndySailz, but I am hoping you can clarify. If the provided references are inadequate and require further support from credible sources, how is this notable? Are you able to provide those credible sources? "Appear[ing] significant" and being notable are two different things. We need sources showing such. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is borderline notable, but not seeing it as enough for a stand alone article. Even with his involvement with some films. Which are very particular. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaro Shimbara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not quite pass WP:SPORTCRIT and a cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep There is no indication that @Vanderwaalforces did even a cursory WP:BEFORE search in Japanese WP:NOENG or is competent enough in Japanese to do so. Just the first page of Japanese results include a full-length feature in Motorsport Magazine (which while partially an interview passes for notability), Auto Sport coverage of his Honda Racing School scholarship (also in Chinichi Shimbun), another full feature in JSport, along with regular coverage of his race results. DCsansei (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @DCsansei Ah, I surely I’m not Japanese neither do I speak the language; so, thank you so much for pointing to those sources. I checked them, and the machine translations I used were pretty competent in giving me an English version; they, I mean all the sources your mentioned, do not contribute to adding a substance of notability for the subject. Winning a school championship does not count in itself at all, and having sources that either fail WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:SIGCOV do not help too. @JTtheOG thoughts? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely none of the sources DCsansei provided fail WP:INDEPENDENT. You could, at most, class Auto Sport as WP:ROUTINE. MSport1005 (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh no, the publications might not be directly connected to the subject, but those pieces from them clearly are. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Those pieces from them clearly are" isn't a compelling argument. You're gonna need to try harder. MSport1005 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned, I only looked at the first page of results. Doing a competent WP:BEFORE is something nominators are expected to do, which you've stated you're unable to do in Japanese. DCsansei (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless you both provide clear-cut GNG-sufficient sources to establish notability for the subject, then I am still very confident the subject does not meet the threshold. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This seems like a borderline case from a WP:GNG perspective, although Formula Four drivers are rarely notable. My suspicion is that this needs a thorough WP:BEFORE review from multiple people who can read Japanese to resolve the above dispute. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No indication that a WP:BEFORE search was conducted in Japanese or that the nominator is competent enough in Japanese to do so. What DCsansei said is correct, and I agree with the statement made before

Thfeeder (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thfeeder I’m sorry, but your !vote is baseless in terms of policy as it applies to notability, which is what I am questioning in the first place. You’re telling me I do not have competence in Japanese but you’re not bringing any source to justify your stance. If you are competent, please bring the sources and let us evaluate, that is what AfD is about, not to caste aspersions indirectly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify - I am going to mostly agree with HumanBodyPiloter5 here. It may well be borderline, but we are not at GNG on the sourcing presented so far. The reports that he will participate in FIA is routine announcements of the kind that every racer will get. These are not independent of the subject, because the announcement is not independent, regardless of who repeats it. It is technically primary news reporting, and also excluded on that basis. This can't be used to demonstrate notability on its own. If we accepted this then all F4 drivers would be automatically notable, and there is no consensus for that. So what we need are sources that independently cover the subject. It may also be WP:TOOSOON in that he is much more likely to be notable should he win races. Is there a suitable redirect target? If there is no suitable redirect, then I would suggest we draftify this new page (and this is my !vote for now). We have no evidence of notability, but we have at least the possibility that a deep search in Japanese searches will yield more, and also that he may do well and thus see more coverage. Equally, a very real possibility there are no better sources right now. But if the page creator of this new page can find sources, they could submit through AFC when they have been found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Seems new to the game and has not received significant coverage. May indeed be WP:TOOSOON. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Umegaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not quite pass WP:SPORTCRIT and a cursory search did not yield anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No indication that a WP:BEFORE search was conducted in Japanese or that the nominator is competent enough in Japanese to do so. I see some significant coverage from Auto Sport and Chunichi for his win last week. I urge nominator to do a complete search in Japanese before nominating (or leave the nominating of Japanese articles to those who can evaluate Japanese sources). DCsansei (talk) 04:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I surely I’m not Japanese neither do I speak the language; so, thank you so much for pointing to those sources. I checked them, and the machine translations I used were pretty competent in giving me an English version; they, I mean all the sources your mentioned, do not contribute to adding a substance of notability for the subject. Do you mind pointing me to what point in WP:NMOTORSPORT does Umegaki pass? I’d appreciate it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMOTORSPORT is a broad indicator of what's considered notable. It's not an exhaustive list and shall not be used as a disqualifier. WP:GNG matters. MSport1005 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is in fact not met here also. Do you remember what it says about independent reliable sources that covers the subject substantially? These three parameters need to be met for GNG to be satisfied, it isn’t the case here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're unable to conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE search in Japanese, you're unable to make an early judgement on whether coverage exists. You've stated your case. Now please leave it to others. I'm waiting before casting a !vote for the same reason. MSport1005 (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning delete unless further evidence of notability emerges - Seems like a possible case of WP:ONEEVENT, but I'd need to see evidence of a more thorough Japanese-language WP:BEFORE search before committing to a delete vote. I do, however, find it highly implausible that a driver at this stage of their career would meet the WP:GNG. Neither Formula Four nor Formula Regional are particularly high profile categories (I would personally consider them to be the fifth and sixth tiers of single-seater racing) and drivers who compete in them are rarely notable. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No indication that a WP:BEFORE search was conducted in Japanese or that the nominator is competent enough in Japanese to do so. What DCsansei said is correct, and I agree with the statement made before. Thfeeder (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thfeeder I’m sorry, but your !vote is baseless in terms of policy as it applies to notability, which is what I am questioning in the first place. You’re telling me I do not have competence in Japanese but you’re not bringing any source to justify your stance. If you are competent, please bring the sources and let us evaluate, that is what AfD is about, not to caste aspersions indirectly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. May be WP:TOOSOON. Not really notable from the sources in the article. Not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per Ramos1990. Does not meet WP:GNG and at this early stage in their career, very unlikely a deep search in Japanese sources would yield anything. However the page is new, as is the career. If there is early success the sources could follow, so draftify or redirect are suitable WP:ATDs. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of Antarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Basically, Antarctica has no cuisine. There is food which has been used on expeditions (just like it was used on arctic expeditions, or by mountaineers). The very long "overview" section has nothing to do with the "cuisine of Antarctica" and seems like pure padding. At best, this article needs to be severely trimmed and moved to something like Food of Antarctic expeditions, without a redirect. Fram (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as pointed out to me previously, WP:R#KEEP states that redirects from moves should usually not be deleted. Stockhausenfan (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That mostly applies to redirects with a longer history, not for page moves of new or very recent pages (there may be other reasons to keep such redirects anyway of course). Fram (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Antarctica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fictional topic, there is no cuisine of Antarctica – pack animals having been eaten does not make it the local cuisine or suitable to be listed with other foods eaten. The Overview section is bafflingly irrelevant and a copy-paste of Wildlife of Antarctica. Food eaten on Antarctic expeditions is little different from that eaten on other sailing trips of the era or on Arctic expeditions – perhaps there's a place to mention these foodstuffs but certainly not a new standalone page for Antarctica. Reywas92^Talk 17:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Improvised emergency nutrition and cuisine are two very different things. This is a WP:COATRACK of content on a) biodiversity of the Southern Ocean and neighboring lands (Overview section), b) historical facts covered in other articles (History section), and c) foods that keep well and require little preparation (Cuisine section). Inherently nonexistent topic, pure SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reason for this article to exist, since the topic is made up. Maybe WP:CRYSTAL — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As much as I want in my heart to say keep for the goofy title alone, can't. This is basically it for "sources": 1 and 2. Sums it up... Though the influence of the cuisine of Antarctica is a bit hard to find largely because Antarctica has no population... -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article lead says it all. There is no cuisine in Antarctica. The overview section is just Wildlife of Antarctica#Animals, not even about food. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definist fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Current topic is not independently notable and should just be discussed (if at all) in a paragraph or section of the Naturalistic fallacy article. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some further elaboration:

The article right now is solely about a hypothetical fallacy discussed in one journal article by Frankena, whose sole point is to critique Moore's account of the naturalistic fallacy, and does so by inventing a broader "fallacy" called the "definist fallacy" and then arguing that it is not a fallacy at all.

Most sources that use the term "definist fallacy" do so in an entirely different sense to Frankena's. If you look at the first page of Google results for "definist fallacy", then, besides Wikipedia and pages that copied from Wikipedia, you will mostly see pages that use the term to describe a fallacy that involves either:

• unfairly defining a term in such a manner as to favour your side of an argument, or
• arguing that a term must be rigorously defined before it can be used

neither of which relate to the current article topic.

Note also that the existing redirect from Socratic fallacy is incorrect. The Socratic Fallacy is synonymous with yet another entirely different and unrelated "definist fallacy", not Frankena's that our article is currently about nor either of the other two that I mention above.

Thus even though the term is fairly popular, usage of it is overwhelmingly not related to the current article topic, which I suspect is probably better thought of as a minor subtopic for the Naturalistic fallacy article.

(And in any case, the article as it currently exists is awful, so even if a case exists for the "fallacy" from Frankena's 1939 argument against Moore having its own dedicated article, nothing would really be lost by starting again from scratch.) ExplodingCabbage (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This should be converted to a disambiguation page, not deleted. as outlined in the nom, this term is fairly popular (and therefore notable, and shouldn't be deleted), and consistently used in multiple different ways by different reliable sources (and therefore needs to be disambiguated). Psychastes (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also i checked in scholar and Frankena's paper introducing his "definist fallacy" has nearly 700 citations, so while it's certainly not necessary to have a standalone article, it's clearly notable enough in its own right as a standalone concept that's widely discussed in the literature. Psychastes (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a disambig page at Definist fallacy (disambiguation); I guess we'd want to move that to Definist_fallacy, then make Definist fallacy (disambiguation) a redirect to it. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah! i missed that. yeah, i agree, that sounds good to me. I've also added a modified version of the page content to Naturalistic fallacy#Non-synonymous properties already so it would just require pointing the dab link there and adding an anchor. Psychastes (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate proposed above. It seems that there are layers of this term that need to be disentangled. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: the consensus thus far seems to be that the existing disambig page should move to Definist fallacy. Should this be done...

1. ... by deleting Definist fallacy and then moving Definist fallacy (disambiguation), or

2. ... by copying and pasting the content of Definist fallacy (disambiguation) over Definist fallacy and then editing Definist fallacy (disambiguation) to be a redirect

? I am inclined to favour 2 since it keeps the old content & revision history of Definist fallacy more publicly accessible, but I don't know if there's guidance about these situations that directs otherwise. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClubHouze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article refers only to self-published and primary sources. I cannot find any independent sources with significant coverage. The organization seems to have had a facebook-page that has not been updated for quite a while. I do not see how or why this organization may be notable. Fails WP:GNG. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Australia. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Dance, Music, and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very poor uncredible references. Delete as not notable entity (early childhood learning provider). Linkusyr (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable enough in it's day. Seems dead now. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NORG, it does not pass notability guidelines and there is no independent coverage about the approach. --hroest 20:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete potential advert created by a single purpose account. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP AND WP:PROMO. It reads like a promotion when it says phrases like “programs are a combination of movement, music and creativity” and details about rebranding and program changes lack a neutral tone and context about the company’s broader significance. Editz2341231 (talk) 19:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like phone book or magazine ad. Not seeing this as WP:NCORP. Not notable enough for a stand alone article like this. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KK Korab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find any references about Korab University or its basketball team. Fails WP:GNG. See also WP:NTEAM. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and North Macedonia. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unverifiable club of an unverifiable private school. Bearian (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable here. Reads like trivia. Not much to be a standalone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes in Brussels on May 4 and 5, 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, racist and violent football-related riots which happen sadly quite often. Can perhaps be a short paragraph in some other article, don't know where though, but not enough to be a separate article. Got a lot of attention, as these things do, but no indication so far that this will lead to anything WP:SUSTAINED. Fram (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Football, and Belgium. Fram (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article does not describe just another hooligan riot, but a case of significant socio-political unrest in Belgium. 80 people were injured, including children, policemen and a man with serious gunshot wounds. this is very unusual. there have been many political reactions at national level and official commemorations. several foreign media have covered these events, including in France (RMC Sport, La Dépêche, So Foot), Spain (Diario AS) and the Netherlands (NOS), which demonstrates international notability of these events. the argument that we don't yet know whether this will have a lasting impact doesn't hold water, because the impact is already there, widely covered by reliable secondary sources. --GloBoy93 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Somewhat ref-bombed, however I've read some of the French articles, this seems like a notable event. There are multiple issues with the article and its structure. The article needs renaming. WP:DMY needs applying correctly for Belgium. Other than issues to address, i'd say keep. Govvy (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge short summary to R.S.C. Anderlecht–Club Brugge KV rivalry This needs a serious edit to summarize what happened and it's well into TOOLONG territory (neighboring countries mentioning the event in rundown form is unremarkable, especially in the EU), and it can be summarized there as just a mention of the club's hooligans taking things too far. I certainly do not want it deleted, but if the article target is inappropriate I can switch it, no issue. Nathannah • 📮 00:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to above suggested target. There are many instances of sport hooliganism, most aren't notable, this does not seem to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets all the general notability guidelines. The riots and the reaction to them extend far beyond the 'usual' hooliganism or rivalry between R.S.C. Anderlecht and Club Brugge. They were widely reported by all Belgian media outlets and received significant attention and condemnation from local, regional and national authorities. Jason Lagos (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge short summary to R.S.C. Anderlecht–Club Brugge KV rivalry - fully agree with Nathannah on this. The title should then be deleted as it's an improbable redirect. GiantSnowman 18:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, football related violence is a common occurence. Revisit this in 6 months if there is any WP:LASTING impact. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Drake Passage earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fail WP:EVENT; this is an earthquake with no lasting impact or in-depth coverage unworthy of its own article. Has not caused serious impact or disruption. Some notable aspects of the article suitable for Wikipedia can be merged into List of earthquakes in 2025 as the list has dictated. An article is unnecessary Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree for similar reasons. Quake1234 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Quake1234 you need to explicitly vote by adding a bolded Support/Oppose or Keep/Delete FYI Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Argentina, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no enduring impact. Mikenorton (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Dora. Any arguments about strength amount to WP:TRIVIA at this stage. Borgenland (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Incoming WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments which has taken off recently in AfDs Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Merge a brief snippet to list 2025 earthquakes and redirect per nom.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I've added some details to the notes section of the table entry for this quake at List of earthquakes in 2025. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a high-magnitude earthquake—the strongest in over 75 years in the area. It caused no damage but did lead to evacuations due to tsunami warnings. Many less significant earthquakes, especially in the United States, have their own Wikipedia pages. Pristino (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pristino, you've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that notability is based on the sourcing, not how important it feels or whether there are other articles that might also need to be deleted. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point: 2018 Hawaii earthquake. It had a lower magnitude that this one (6.9 vs. 7.4) and occurred in an earthquake-prone area as well. No damage was reported. Not WP:WAX, because (1) there was talk of deleting the article, but no AfD was initiated, and (2) it has survived a full seven years on Wikipedia. Pristino (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to take the Hawaii article to AfD. Dawnseeker2000 16:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, here you have the source you are asking for: Montes, Carlos (May 2, 2025). «Magallanes registra el terremoto más fuerte en 75 años por activación de desconocida falla de Scotia». La Tercera. Consultado el 2 de mayo de 2025. It exist in the article and is used to state that what Pristino wrote here. Ingminatacam (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a WP:News article, not an encyclopedic subject. No significant secondary coverage. A merge is unnecessary as a single list entry on the target page is sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge – No impact from the earthquake. Bakhos Let's talk! 03:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:EVENT, no lasting effect.--Darius (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this was a good candidate for WikiNews; it is not encyclopedic. Dawnseeker2000 16:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It had strong media coverage and much expectation in Chile (national level) and Argentina (provincial level) regarding a tsunami that was expected. It was felt and caused alarm in numerous settlements including the cities of Punta Arenas, Río Grande, Ushuaia and Puerto Williams. Various scientific enquiries on this unusual earthquake are underway. Ingminatacam (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strongest earthquake in the area in the last 75 years [59]. I would say that's something. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "No secondary coverage", my aunt... There's solid coverage of characteristics and emergency response. I don't know where this idea comes from that earthquakes without a death toll are not notable. Have fun enshrining that in a guideline. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No notable impact on people or structures from the shaking or tsunami, not especially scientifically notable, just occurred in a less common area. Others pointed out how it's the largest there in 75 years but that alone isn't enough to warrant its own article. Just another knee-jerk reaction of an article made shortly after the earthquake happened. MagikMan1337 (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of coverage in sources clearly referenced in the article. --cyclopia^speak! 10:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from WP:EVENT, "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article". I'm not seeing anything significant published after the day of the earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the news is over. It was a big scare and a few news articles continue have continued the days after. To truly evaluate for its lasting impact we would need among other things to see the upcomming scientific publications on this earthquake. Right now I would argue evidence points towards a lasting relevance by the scare it produced, the apparent impact on the evaluation of hazards reponse and the scientific enquiry that emerged from it. Ingminatacam (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"lasting relevance by the scare it produced", it has only been 10 days and i'm not seeing any English or Spanish language sources cover this event since May 4. A look at the sourcing, nearly all of them were dated on the day of the event, and a simple search couldn't yield more recent coverage (WP:NOTNEWS). Regarding the scientific aspects; seismologists/earthquake geologists will study all sorts of earthquakes regardless of magnitudes or their impact and publish their findings in journals/reports. That cannot be an a criteria for keeping an article. And I haven't seen any papers about this yet so that's WP:CRYSTALBALL assuming anything will be published.

Nearly 70% of all M7+ earthquakes happen in the ocean every year; some triggering tsunami warnings/advisories and lead to evacuations that can last for hours but do not cause significant impact on societies overall. It is WP:INDISCRIMINATE if this article establishes the minimum criteria for a standalone article and encourages more editors to create pages for unworthy events. Not all earthquakes need to have an article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the way you are attempty to apply WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is clearly very unusual event in southern Argentina and Chile the strongest earthquake in the area in 70+ years and one of the five strongest (Mw) in Chile in the last ten years. For some people in Global North this may seem of little relevance given that it does impact their lives nor their academic interest. This may be just is just as irrelevant to them as the article of random member of house of parliament in Argentina or Chile. They just dont care, but locally it is fully relevant, as I have said before because of number of impacted people (evacuated), the saturated media coverage and the more lasting impact on national hazard warning system and applied research. Ingminatacam (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest earthquake in X number of years does not automatically establishes notability and fulfil the criteria for an article. It is not an unusual event either, where are you getting this idea from? Chile and Argentina are on an active plate boundary which produces frequent earthquake, there is nothing odd about this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things in Earth Science are odd in the sense you seem to portray. Few if none of the 100+ volcanoes in Chile is "odd", and the same is true for the >9 Mw megathrust earthquakes along the boundaries of Nazca and South American plates. They have occurred for millions of years and will continue to happen.

With regards to the 2025 Drake Passage earthquake it is the most noteworthy earthquake in many decades in that part of the world. That is nothing that can be swept away with an undue claim of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Few earthquakes of this magnitude and earthquakes in this part of the world recieve this amount of media attention causing such ammount of alarm and, judging earthquakes by magnitude (M_w) alone, as I hope you are not doing, is I would say regrettable. There are many factors to ponder in an earthquake, including its depth, potential to cause harm och material damage and the scientific and public interest it may arise. Ingminatacam (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes are always expected in a seismically active zone, it does not mean we create an article for every one of them we feel needs an article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository of information for every earthquake we think should have an article.

judging earthquakes by magnitude (Mw) alone, as I hope you are not doing, is I would say regrettable, am I judging this event solely on magnitude? No, you did not read my comments right. I have considered a lot of variables in my delete/keep rationale and my judgement considering the low-impact and lack of lasting coverage is delete (evacuations do not count). There has not been any detailed scientific queries yet; if there are any you can recreate this article again in the future. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A single earthquake occurring in a less common area doesn't warrant its own page Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not think you commentary offer a valid rationale for deletion as that is not sole criteria for inclusion of this article. Besides its relative rarity it caused great alarm and the evacuation of more than 1,800 people on two continents (South America and Antarctica), saturated the news coverage for about a day and it has evidently had an impact on the seismic hazard management and study in Chile. You have to take the whole into consideration. Ingminatacam (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There's enough national and international coverage on RS about the event (BBC, ABC News, RTE, CBS News, New York Times, Reuters, Al Jazeera, DW, USA Today) [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] To meet WP:EVENT, the guidelines say the event should be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". It's a rare event, an earthquake very strong for the area and near the surface (unlike the ones seen elsewhere in South America) [67]. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are all routine (obligatory) stories from news outlets on the day of the event. News organizations create short (low effort) posts like these for the potential of advertising clicks. See WP:DOGBITESMAN. We prefer to have extended coverage of events that show more substance and enduring effects. There really isn't much to say about this one right now, but there's always a potential for more substantial sources in the future. We'll just have to wait and see, but these sources don't describe anything encyclopedic at the moment. Dawnseeker2000 13:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Krzak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG zero independent reliable sources and conflict of interest. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom Laura240406 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I searched EBSCO database and Google News; and found only passing mentions confirming his animation credits, but lacking SIGCOV. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 19:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The few sources are only mentions, social media or primary sources. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - from what I can tell, an up and coming but not yet notable animator. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable coverage in independent media, apart from original research and possible not true facts in BLP page. Norlk (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like an instagram page of self promotion. Nothing particularly notable and sourcing is poor. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Carlos Álvarez Valdés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This young tennis player fails WP:GNG without significant coverage. The only secondary source I found is a routine announcement on Tribuna Mexico. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Mexico. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – "Highest ranking No. 842" – I think this speaks for itself regarding the notability of this tennis player. Svartner (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total GNG flop. I cannot find anything like SIGCOV for this player. Anxioustoavoud (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Minor player. No SIGCOV. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable player. Not enough coverage. Could not really find a redirect either. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Uchenna Emembolu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are not WP:RS and that renders this subject ineligible for an article Mekomo (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources really do not follow WP:RS, while the trivial coverage is very trivial and non-neutral. Cinder painter (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:V, also WP:BIO. Feels like UPE 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I might be open to reconsider if it is rewritten to contain just neutral, supported statements, although I don't know there would be much left. Currently it is filled with press-release material such as "...platforms that have empowered thousands through digital literacy". The references mostly fail to support the statements in the article (e.g. number 5 itedgenews contains only the following mention of him: "Co-founded by Charles Uche Emembolu and Kelvin Chikezie, Dexude’s mission is...").--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really notable. Sourcing is also not up to par. With the amount of OR, it looks like it was written by someone close to the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Nešković (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Notability: Đorđe Nešković has led a national team at multiple European Curling Championships, which is a significant international competition. That's a point in favor of notability.
• Achievement: He won Serbia's first ever curling medal at the 2013 European C-Group Championships. First national medals in any sport usually carry weight.

Боки 💬 📝 21:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those criteria meet WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2013 European Curling Championships – Men's tournament#Group C where his name is mentioned. By the way, has anyone tried searching under "Ђорђе Нешковић"? Because that's where potential coverage would be. Following WP:NSPORTS2022, notability should be only judged by references provided on the article, not achievements anymore. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2013 European Curling Championships – Men's tournament#Group C sounds reasonable. Not seeing him as notable for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Eagle Flight 5401 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has been turned into a redirect multiple times by several editors (myself included back in 2019). Fails WP:SUSTAINED, and normally aviation incidents which result in zero fatalities are best served as redirects. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - specifically to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents (where it was until recently) It's a run-of-the-mill incident; prop planes bounce down runways all the time, causing injuries, absent any sustained coverage or any claim in the article for notability this should be a redirect. JeffUK 12:38, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking for now, see discussion RE ongoing changes to procedures. JeffUK 10:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents as an alternative to deletion – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added that the accident resulted in changes to procedures and regulations affecting airlines, and so has an lasting effect: The accident let to inclusion of "bounced landing recovery techniques" in pilot trainings. (Note to nominator rationale: It is not a good AFD reasoning: Has been turned into a redirect multiple times by several editors (myself included back in 2019) The article includedes now much more references, is improved and is in better shape compared to the previous time the nominator redirected the page.) 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What proof is there that there were lasting effects? Just because recommendations were issued doesn't necessarily mean that they were ever implemented. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight:: Recommendations were as good as directly implemented: "On September 25, 2004, Executive Airlines incorporated bounced landing recovery techniques in its Airplane Operating Manual (AOM). The bounced landing recovery guidance states the following: In the event the aircraft should bounce after landing, hold or re-establish a normal landing attitude and immediately add power as necessary to control the rate of descent. When using this recovery technique, exercise extreme caution not to increase the pitch attitude above normal as this will only increase the height of the bounce and may cause entry into stall warning. DO NOT push over, as this will only cause another bounce and damage the nose gear. If there is any doubt as to a safe recovery, the captain will call for and conduct an immediate go-around. Apply go-around power and fly the Missed Approach/Rejected Landing Profile. DO NOT retract the Landing Gear until a positive rate of climb is established because a second touchdown may occur during the recovery. ". Next to that, when I Google it, I see the topic reached a lot of attentention in pilot training now, 2 pages I opened for instance pilotmall and pilotinstitute. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source that says this incident lead to the inclusion of bounced landing recovery techniques even in the EA manual (The source in the article mentions both things, but does not say it was causally linked)? If it was just one airline implementing them, rather than a change to national regulations or guidance I still don't think that's enough; the source also says that some airlines and manufacturers already had bounced landing techniques in their training programmes.

If the FAA did in fact "Require all 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 and 135 air carriers to incorporate bounced landing recovery techniques in their flight manuals and to teach these techniques during initial and recurrent training. (A-05-30)" (as recommended by the report for this accident).. AND did so as a direct result of this incident, (Not, for instance, because there were hundreds of similar incidents with similar recommendations) then that changes things. JeffUK 10:09, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/12/2013-26845/qualification-service-and-use-of-crewmembers-and-aircraft-dispatchers comes close. "The FAA determined that training on recovery from bounced landing is necessary based on FAA review of accident history including.." the mentions two incidents, including flight 5401. I think that does merit inclusion in the article. "This is one of the accidents that caused bounced training landing to become mandatory" does make this feel more notable... JeffUK 10:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See for the main source page numbered as 28 of the Aircraft Accident Report. (From this date other airliners copied related phrasing to their manuals, however without referring to this accident; and also not to another accident.) 95.98.65.177 (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, we have evidence that one airliner changed its procedure due to this specific accident, with the other airliners following with related phrasings. And, as I’m aware of, all airliners incorporated bounced landing recovery techniques. Such changes/additions are (of course) not explained; but the fact is the airliners incorporated it after this high-impact bounced landing recovery techniques accident. This makes it highly likely that the awareness of bounced landing recovery techniques after this specific accident caused a lasting effect. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage needed to establish notability is still pretty lackluster. I don't see why this couldn't be covered at American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents or also Bounced landing and maybe add a few lines or more on what happened following the release of the final report. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The page needs more references. And, also this week I have had two articles that I originated and had been sent to redirect reappear as main space articles, this one and the Sergio Blass one. I wonder how that happens? It was not me!!! (lol) Jeanette the dancer Martin {*wink*) 10:22, 9 April, 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents per WP:ATD. The only linked sources are two local articles from around the same day as the accident with only very basic levels of coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), plus the accident report itself (which I don't think actually qualifies as a "secondary source", it is more of a "primary source" as per Aviationwikiflight). As such, I do not think that WP:NEVENT is passed. Flip^andFlopped ツ 01:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As discussed in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 May 2, this AfD is reopened and relisted following a "redirect" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. In June 2023 I came across this article and saw that it had been redirected without any apparent consensus to do so and restored the article. I then worked on adding to the article to help establish evidence of meeting WP:GNG. After a thirty minute search, having made a determined effort, I found no reliable, independent sources aside from the day-of-the-event reporting. At that point, I concluded that I could not demonstrate GNG and ended up undoing my restoration of the article with the edit summary "Almost no coverage". The accident report and the federal register documents can't be used to meet GNG. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I searched a lot and came again to the same conclusion. I closed this discussion in April as redirect but after Deletion Review took place, this ware renewed. I don't see any other opinions. Norlk (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to American Eagle (airline brand)#Accidents and incidents. It was resurrected an not really an improvement. Still not enough for a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the reason why it has been relisted: there was no furhter discussion after this reasoning: "we have evidence that one airliner changed its procedure due to this specific accident, with the other airliners following changing their procedure with related phrasings. And, as I’m aware of, all airliners incorporated bounced landing recovery techniques now. Such changes/additions are (of course) not explained; but the fact is the airliners incorporated it after this high-impact bounced landing recovery techniques accident. This makes that the accident caused a lasting effect due to the increasing awareness of bounced landing recovery techniques. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasimi (Baku Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems unlikely that sources exist which show that every stop on this metro line are notable per WP:STATION. Other language WP pages are poorly referenced, at best they show the station exists in public timetables etc. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this metro stop is notable as it is an example of post-Soviet architecture in Azerbaijan. Most metro stations in the former Soviet Union have unique architectural features, see stations of the Saint Petersburg Metro. You would not delete a station article for the New York City Subway or the Moscow Metro so why delete this one? Zbase4 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Week Keep I found one source:

• AZERTAC (2024-06-04). Laməkan şairin metrodakı məkanı. Retrieved 2025-05-17 – via YouTube.

In addition, the Azerbaijani Wiki has two additional sources but they are both dead links & I cannot revive on Archive.org. From the titles they suggest SIGCOV & searching their former domains they seemed to be news sources so I will WP:AGF of the original Wiki authors and assume they are SIGCOV RS. Jumpytoo Talk 01:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Baku Metro. There is nothing for a stand alone article. Lacking in notability as a trainstation. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LDC Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent refs on the page. Nothing much found to consider against the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nothing to meet WP:NCORP FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Law Development Centre. It makes more sense since it from that department. Notability is not established aside from this. Sourcing is poor too. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Afshani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined the speedy tag this am, since the (dated) sources all date newer than the previous AfD (inappropriately closed as speedy delete by a non-admin closer). This latest incarnation is entirely sourced from Farsi outlets, so even with translation, I'm not comfortable with my own views on how direct the detailing is or how much is merely routine entertainment chatter. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: third relist in hopes of generating some discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Subject not notable and sourcing is not that good. Certainly not enough for a stand alone article. His arrest is the only subtsance in the article and that is WP:NOTNEWS. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WJNK-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested WP:PROD; questionable sourcing; some original research; tone concerns. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WPGD-TV History before Edge Spectrum came in and switched networks from 3ABN to TBN is unremarkable, and whatever their actual plans outside rebroadcasting WPGD-TV on ATSC 3.0 is a big unknown just because we have no idea what Edge Spectrum plans for their stations when they actually build them out or acquire one. Right now it's a pointless in-market translator for a network overcovered by WPGD and streaming...and it's not even broadcasting any of the networks in HD, even though the standard would allow that and they have nothing else outside these channels on their spectrum (this is why I AfD'ed their article, because I'm baffled about everything Edge Spectrum does). Nathannah • 📮 21:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to WPGD-TV. I think it can be salvaged a bit. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is primarily about his parents and grandfather and very little about Hubertus himself beyond genealogical information. I see no reason for notability independent of his ancestry. WP:NOTINHERITED WP:NOTGENEOLOGY D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. D1551D3N7 (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ernst Leopold Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (his father). The contents of this entire article can be transferred to and summed up in the "Marriage and family" section of the other article I mentioned. Vida0007 (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per User:Vida0007. Kakurokuna (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.The present prospective petitioner to be restored as Duke of Albany should have his own article and Wikipedia's genealogical content is not a drawback in any sense and there is no reason to thin it just because it's not marked for extension.72.80.84.163 (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a form WP:CRYSTALBALL argument you are making. The Duke of Albany title was ended in the Titles Deprivation Act 1917 a whole 44 years before Hubertus was born. You seem to think there's some inherit notability in being "in line" for a title that fundamentally no longer exists and your basis is that it could potentially be restored but there's no sources to support that. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Royal Family article in Debrett's Peerage includes the deprived titles as "suspended" and tracks the heirs and we should do likewise...the law makes provision for heirs to petition to be restored. 72.80.84.163 (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't help but note that this is not an argument for preserving this page. Kakurokuna (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Beeing a potential petitoner does not bring relevance. Beeing a petitoner would change that, but this is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Keeping track of who reliabable sources think could be a potential petioner is already covered in the article Duke of Albany, which is the appropriate place. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The terms of the Act make clear who the one person at any time entitled to petition is but the deletion of this article might be seen as an excuse to omit mention of it from the Duke of Albany article.72.80.84.163 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only claim to fame is nobility. Germany abolished its princely houses over a century ago; those who can trace their lineage back to someone who was once a prince are not princes, and have no nobility to inherit (and in any case, Wikipedia doesn't do notability-by-inheritance). The title Duke of Albany was also abolished more than a century ago. The original abolition allowed for a petition to have it reinstated, but no one has ever done so. In fact no one, in the last century, has ever petitioned for the restoration of any of the titles abolished back in 1917. They are gone. This whole article is unnecessary royal-cruft based on a single source and a fantasy that someone might be restored to something that doesn't exist. Once all this is stripped out, we're left with a guy with 5 half-siblings, an ex and a kid, who manages some property. That's not enough for notability. Elemimele (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ernst Leopold Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (his father). Subject not notable on their own. Some stuff may be salvaged. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asteria Aerospace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:CORPTRIV. References are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 18:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Aviation, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep Delete, Having searched for Asteria Aerospace I have found a few articles spread over a range of different times that provide coverage with it as the main or a significant focus of the coverage, and so appear to provide notability. I would appreciate if someone else would take a look though, especially to verify that the sources are reliable, which they seem to be on a surface level.

The following is just a list to those articles if you want to take a look:

• Asteria Aerospace receives DGCA type certification for its A200-XT drone, Published/last edited 16 Jan 2023
• Asteria Aerospace launches drone software platform SkyDeck, Published/last edited 23 Mar 2022
• Asteria Aerospace Enhances Indian Army's Eyes

Emily.Owl (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these press release based. Routine annoucements that fail WP:CORPTRIV and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 15:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, when you had said routine business news I had thought more along the lines of announcements about leadership, goals, fundraising, etc.

But if that is routine (which it probably is) then yeah it probably does fail for sufficient notability. Emily.Owl (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Emily.Owl: If you look at the first reference there. There is no byline, so that makes it suspect already. It means its not under editorial control, or no editor has actually looked at it. It just a seo tech author putting it together to look like a proper story, but there is no journalistic process. 2ndly, look at what it says: "full-stack drone technology company proudly announces". Nobody write like that unless its promotional branding. 3rdly, you can take the block of text to search if you see commonalities of names, images, specific statements, common statements and so on. If you searched here for example: "This significant milestone underscores Asteria's commitment to Atmanirbhar Bharat" it pops up a company press release on their website: [68] showing its a paid for branding exercise. It is PR. But it is not always press release companies like pressnote.in. Other times it takes some work to devine the information true source, which may be actually be the journalist. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It very much does help for future note, so thanks for telling me now. Emily.Owl (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep i found references [69] and [70], which provide substantial coverage from reliable resources. AndySailz (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2 here fails WP:ORGIND absolutely. Ref is a profile, an advert is non-rs. They are absolute junk. Classic WP:NEWSORGINDIA scope_creep^Talk 18:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable based on current sources. Reads like a company promo. Don't think it meets WP:NCORP. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry: Night of a Lifetime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly sourced and lacks notability. Should be merged into the 143 album article. Sricsi (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Sricsi (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and lack of sources online. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you supporting? A merger? Geschichte (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : No notability Kirtap92 (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Katy_Perry#Filmography. Not really notable on its own since sourcing is poor. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dharavi metro station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find sources to show that this meets WP:GNG. There does seems to be a slideshow of photos of the metro station though. Recommend converting it into a redirect to Line 3 (Mumbai Metro). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Maharashtra. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft leaving a redirect to Line 3 (Mumbai Metro) If the article is moved to draft, the editor who created it can still work on it. He/she is an inexperienced editor, whose account was created a year ago. He/she has only recently experimented with trying to create new articles. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers applies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify per Toddy1. मल्ल (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. We are not a travel guide or a rail/metro encyclopedia. I explicitly disagree with draftifying on the grounds that the metro station fails WP:GNG by far - this place doesn't merit its own article. JavaHurricane 09:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree that it fails GNG by far. A web search shows that there is some coverage of the topic. I see nothing wrong with having it go through AFC. मल्ल (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As notability is not established. No need to make an article for every station in existence. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect sounds better. Changing my vote to Redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Line 3 (Mumbai Metro)#List of stations as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 16:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dadar Metro metro station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to find sources to show that this meets WP:GNG. There does seems to be a slideshow of photos of the metro station though. Recommend converting it into a redirect to Line 3 (Mumbai Metro). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and Maharashtra. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft leaving a redirect to Line 3 (Mumbai Metro) Clicking the Google News link above showed 56 useful sources. You have to get special permission to cite swarajyamag.com in articles (because it has published misinformation a lot), but V Bhagya Subhashini's 14 May 2024 article South Mumbai Welcomes Metro: Successful Trial Run On City’s First Underground Corridor is worth reading, and does more than mention Dadar in passing. If the article-creator could find five or six articles like that one (but from less controversial sources), it would prove notability.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The only phrase in the first result of "South+Mumbai+Welcomes+Metro" which has more than a passing ref to the metro station is "Dadar and Siddhivinayak stations are poised to open for commuters upon the completion of Phase II". IMO that is far from SIGCOV. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NTRAINSTATION says "train stations have no inherent notability and are not presumed notable for simply being train stations." I believe this applies to metro stations as well. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. We are not a travel guide or a rail/metro encyclopedia. JavaHurricane 09:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Station not notable on their own. Own page for each station in existence is not necessary. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect sounds better. Changing my vote to Redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Line 3 (Mumbai Metro)#List of stations as ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 16:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hokkaido Kaminokuni High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No apparent notability JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Upon search, the school does not seem to have reliable, secondary coverage. There is no real reason to presume the school is notable per WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Was PROD'd by @Alphabetagamma in August '24 but contested. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSCHOOL, seems to be a WP:ROTM high school without any notability. --hroest 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or redirect to Kaminokuni,_Hokkaido#Education. --hroest 20:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kaminokuni,_Hokkaido#Education. There is not much to work with in this article. Not every high school needs its own page. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Balochistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

At the time, WP:TOOSOON, fails to retain a stand-alone article on this encyclopedia as it is clearly out from the scope of WP:GNG being devoid of any WP:RS and independent sources, has merely a few as well as unreliable news sources coming from the Indian news media. MŠLQr (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. MŠLQr (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Similar case for another associated article (Balochistan Freedom Declaration) currently under the AfD. MŠLQr (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete pr nomination. No independent or reliable sources supporting this article...Ngrewal1 (talk) 11:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The article is based on **multiple independent and reliable sources**. India Today, The Print, and Business Today have all published coverage of the Republic of Balochistan's declaration and associated armed actions. These outlets are established, non-fringe, and have robust editorial standards.

India Today, for example, is one of South Asia’s largest media networks with 50–150 million monthly visits. Articles used are not blogs or op-eds but fact-based reports. Accusing Indian media of being unreliable solely due to geopolitical bias violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV. If the sources meet reliability criteria on other topics, they cannot be rejected here purely due to their nationality or coverage of Pakistan-related subjects.

–– Logichulk Logichulk (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Very much TOOSOON. This might fizzle away in 6mths; it's only been declared in the last week. We need to see if this turns out to be important, hence the TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a one-line event or passing mention – it includes territorial claims, seizure of Mangochar, involvement of the Baloch Liberation Army, and formal requests for international recognition. Wikipedia articles on Kosovo, Chechnya, and Donetsk were not delayed for "6 months" to see if they succeeded geopolitically. Wikipedia documents notable claims with real-world impact, not just recognized states. Logichulk (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a week old "entity". This could all be over tomorrow, we have no way of knowing if this is a permanent item or a blip in the history books at this point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  by your logic any partial state would not exist on wikipedia, or the islamic emirate of rafah would just be deleted. JaxsonR (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  kinda ironic its being deleted rn JaxsonR (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  TOOSOON wouldn't be a valid reason to delete the Rafah article because Rafah existed over 13 years ago. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balochistan Freedom Declaration. MarioGom (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Logichulk (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is notable and supported by reliable, independent sources. Media outlets such as India Today, which receives between 50–150 million monthly online visits, are widely recognized for their credibility and national influence. Additional sources like The Print and Business Today are also established, independent news organizations with strong editorial standards.

The subject, the Republic of Balochistan, is significant in the context of South Asian geopolitics, especially given recent developments involving the Baloch Liberation Army and territorial declarations reported by multiple outlets. These events have been documented in depth by the aforementioned media, fulfilling the general notability guideline (GNG).

The article reflects real-world coverage, is not self-published or fringe, and deserves to remain. Rather than deletion, the focus should be on improving citations and formatting where necessary.

–– :Logichulk

Logichulk, Significant in context of South Asian geopolitics without any in-depth coverage? the focus should be on improving citations and formatting where necessary. Which citations? How is Indian news reporting WP:RS and independent? Sepcially for a topic related to Pakistan, when there has been a conflict between the two countries recently. MŠLQr (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thoughtful follow-up. I’m happy to clarify.

1. On "significance without in-depth coverage":

The article cites multiple full-length, independently published reports specifically about the Republic of Balochistan and the declaration by Mir Yar Baloch. These include:

- [India Today](https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/baloch-leaders-declare-republic-demand-indian-support-475702-2025-05-10) – Covered the seizure of Mangochar and the symbolic independence declaration in a feature-length piece.

- [Business Today](https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/baloch-fighters-seize-city-in-kalat-launch-39-attacks-across-balochistan-475702-2025-05-10) – Reported on the strategic and military dimensions of the event.

- [ThePrint](https://theprint.in/world/baloch-rights-organisations-commemorate-independence-day-pledge-to-continue-struggle/2219402) – Provided analysis of the separatist narrative and its evolution.

These are not trivial mentions but dedicated reports, qualifying under WP:GNG as "significant coverage in reliable, independent sources."

2. On Indian sources being biased or unreliable on Pakistan-related topics:

While it's reasonable to approach cross-border reporting with scrutiny, India Today, ThePrint, and Business Today (as well as NDTV) are established, mainstream media outlets with large editorial teams and professional standards. They are routinely cited across Wikipedia, including for contentious topics. WP:RS does not disqualify a source merely because it originates from a country with geopolitical interests, what matters is its editorial independence, track record, and article content, none of which have been discredited in this case.

If specific claims in these articles are found to be incorrect, we can tag or refine those. But to dismiss an entire country’s media ecosystem categorically would amount to systemic bias, something WP:NPOV warns against.

3. On "which citations need improvement":

The suggestion to improve formatting was to consolidate inline citations, add missing publication dates or authors where needed, and perhaps supplement with international reaction if such sources emerge. It was an invitation for collaboration, not a claim that the current version is uncited.

In summary, in my opinion, the article meets sourcing standards, and let us welcome constructive edits to further strengthen it rather than delete it outright. Logichulk (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Logichulk: These articles are not written by any journalists from these outlets, these are Press releases from ANI, not reliable at all for this topic. GrabUp - Talk 07:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising the ANI issue, GrabUp. I’d like to respond:

1. ANI is not banned under WP:RS.

Asian News International (ANI) is a recognized newswire agency with accreditation, long-term operation, and syndication relationships with major Indian media groups including NDTV, Zee, Hindustan Times, and India Today. It has served as a primary source for government, foreign policy, and security-related news for decades.

While some editors raise concerns about its alignment with the Indian government, there is no community consensus that ANI is unreliable across all topics. In fact, ANI is routinely cited on Wikipedia, especially in articles related to Indian foreign relations, regional security, and South Asian diplomacy. If ANI were inherently unreliable, it would be listed at Reliable Sources/Perennial sources as deprecated. It is not.

2. ANI coverage here is factual and non-opinionated.

In this case, ANI reported on:

- The declaration of independence by a named political actor (Mir Yar Baloch), True

- The seizure of territory (Mangochar) by Baloch fighters, True

- A diplomatic appeal to the Government of India, True

These are verifiable events that multiple other outlets later elaborated upon. There is no editorializing or unverifiable speculation in the ANI reports used. Per WP:NEWSORG, basic factual reporting by a long-standing agency on observable events is typically considered reliable for that reporting.

3. Wire services are not disqualified by default.

Wikipedia uses content from Reuters, PTI, AFP, and ANI regularly. The standard is whether the material is published by a known source, fact-checked, and attributable—not whether it's a staff-bylined thinkpiece.

In conclusion, ANI meets the threshold for WP:RS in this context—especially since its reporting here has been picked up, expanded, and affirmed by independent outlets like ThePrint, NDTV, and Business Today. Dismissing ANI categorically would amount to source bias, not a policy-based deletion rationale. Logichulk (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Logichulk: See the consensus, which says “1.Editors achieved rough consensus that, at minimum additional considerations apply when using Asian News International. 2. There is a rough consensus that its coverage of events relating to and people involved in Indian politics are WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:GUNREL. 3. There is a consensus that the source is biased and should be attribute ANI in-textwhen sourcing contentious claims, with significant and particular caution given when sourcing politically sensitive claims in which the Government of India has an established stake owing to the source's questionable nature. GrabUp - Talk 07:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GrabUp, for raising the ANI question. I acknowledge the RS/N consensus that additional caution is warranted when using ANI, especially for politically sensitive topics where the Government of India is a stakeholder. Attribution is appropriate and has been applied here.

That said, ANI's reporting in this case is straightforward factual coverage of observable events:

A named actor (Mir Yar Baloch) declared independence: true

Territory (Mangochar) was seized: true

A diplomatic appeal was made: true

These are not evaluative or partisan statements, and have since been independently reported by outlets like ThePrint, NDTV, and Business Today. Per WP:NEWSORG, such factual reportage by a long-standing, accredited newswire is generally reliable.

ANI is not deprecated, and using it with attribution in this non-editorial context aligns with both policy and consensus. Logichulk (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Logichulk: It’s WP:NOTNEWS, no international coverage, these trash Indian sources are run for TRP and are not enough to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 09:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we should not have a page purporting the existence of a state which does not exist. This is effectively a fork of Baloch nationalism and Insurgency in Balochistan, and any well-cited and WP:DUE information should be included in one of those pages. CMD (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:SPINOUT, notable subtopics with dedicated coverage may have their own article even if mentioned in broader articles. This allows readers to access focused, structured content. The article complements, not duplicates, the main insurgency or nationalism articles. Logichulk (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This entity was declared unilaterally by Mir Yar Baloch, who seems to be fringe even within the Baloch separatist movement. Reliable sources covered Mir Yar Baloch's declaration as noted by the keep vote above, but not the entity itself; the entity has no in-depth coverage in any of the secondary sources given. Arguably, the coverage only warrants a mention in a larger article on Baloch separatism, especially since this is seemingly the first time Mir Yar Baloch has received any reliable coverage. Yue🌙 02:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The key test is not legal recognition but notability, whether there is independent coverage of the entity itself. Here, the Republic of Balochistan has received focused coverage on its claim, not just the person (Mir Yar Baloch). The coverage discusses aims, claims, territory, and reactions, which go beyond the individual.

  Self-declared or symbolic sovereignty is still a documentable political act that warrants a page if reliably reported. Logichulk (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, when I say "the entity itself", I mean there is no reliable coverage of the Republic of Balochistan itself, i.e. its institutions, activities, beliefs, documentations, notable people, etc., likely because it's too soon for that kind of coverage to appear, because the entity hasn't done anything yet other than declare itself. Just because an idea is prominent in many people's minds doesn't mean a claim to that idea is significant. Yue🌙 19:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per WP:TOOSOON, the available sources are primarily Indian and include only an announcement from an individual. This is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article at this time. The editor User:Logichulk appears to be engaging in WP:Canvassing by reaching out to multiple editors, such as here. Their message also fails to assume good faith, as it refers to the nominator and participants with the statement: There are a couple of contributors from P*kistan who wish to get our article Republic of Balochistan deleted. GrabUp - Talk 10:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, this interpretation of WP:TOOSOON is too narrow. WP:TOOSOON cautions against creating articles where no significant coverage yet exists, not against documenting notable early-stage events that have already received multiple independent, in-depth news reports

  In this case, India Today, ThePrint, Business Today and NDTV have each published full-length, named-entity-specific reports on the Republic of Balochistan, including its territorial assertions, the seizure of Mangochar, involvement of the Baloch Liberation Army, and a diplomatic overture toward India. These are not passing mentions; they demonstrate substantive coverage and notability under WP:GNG.

  The argument that "it’s just an announcement by one individual" also misses the point. Wikipedia regularly documents unilateral declarations, what matters is whether they received sustained coverage, not whether they succeeded. Examples include the Free Republic of Wendland, Republic of Lakotah, and others, all symbolic, one-sided claims, but notable due to real-world reaction and press attention.

  In short, the existence of an entity is less relevant than the existence of coverage about it. And in this case, that coverage exists in multiple sources. Logichulk (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Logichulk: No international coverage only trash Indian media, which is in my perspective not reliable when the topic is related to Pakistan as they shown while the recent conflict, this it totally WP:NOTNEWS, not ready to have a stand-alone article. GrabUp - Talk 07:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agreed with the too soon argument. The Republic of Balochistan is more of a hoax then reality. Just a random guy can't really create his own country by self proclaiming. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The suggestion that the Republic of Balochistan is a "hoax" misunderstands both Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria and the nature of the sources. The article does not claim de facto sovereignty, it documents a public political declaration made by an individual associated with a known insurgent movement (Baloch Liberation Army), which has been covered in multiple independent, reliable media outlets.

  Wikipedia hosts articles on self-declared, unrecognized, or symbolic states, including micronations, short-lived regimes, and exiled governments, provided they are notable and independently covered (see: Republic of Artsakh, Free Territory of Trieste, Sovereign Military Order of Malta, etc.).

  Whether or not a state "really exists" geopolitically is not the bar for inclusion; notability and reliable sourcing are. The media coverage of this declaration is neither satirical nor fringe, it is reported as a significant political development in the context of the Baloch insurgency. Calling it a "hoax" without evidence mischaracterizes the intent and journalistic framing of the cited sources. Logichulk (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - this Pakistan related article is based on some Indian medias which often publish fake news. — Cerium4B—Talk? • 15:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If there are factual errors or misreporting in any specific citation, that can be addressed case-by-case. But dismissing all Indian sources covering a cross-border matter amounts to systemic bias, not policy.

  No evidence has been provided that these sources fabricated or misrepresented facts in this case. Their editorial standards meet the requirements of WP:RS. Logichulk (talk) 07:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't need to reply to every person that posts here, you've made your point. The BLUDGEON isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Firstly, the article has received significant coverage from reputable international news outlets, such as India Today, The Print, Business Today, Zee News, and WION. Dismissing these sources due to geopolitical origin risks applying a double standard and violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Secondly, the article meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (GNG) by receiving significant coverage from independent, secondary sources, detailing the declaration, context, and response. This indicates enduring public interest, even if short-lived politically. Thirdly, the article documents a real, declared separatist movement involving a formal proclamation of independence, statements from exiled leaders, and claims of military action. This makes the topic relevant for historical, political science, and international relations research. Fourthly, Wikipedia is not censored, which contradicts its mission of providing neutral and uncensored information. Fifthly, the article has potential for improvement, as it is currently underdeveloped or poorly sourced. Editors can add more reliable sources and improve the article's neutrality, while concerns about tone or bias should be addressed through edits. Finally, the article is consistent with precedents of similar declarations or short-lived separatist claims, such as the Donetsk People's Republic, Free Lebanon State, and Azawad.7uzyfa (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep, its confirmed today M1rrorCr0ss 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep more sources are mentioning it. BlinxTheKitty (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, more Indian POV based news reporting available. like this one [74] (Baloch leader seeks Indias Support after declaring independence from Pakistan.) Where are third party sources for the existence of the Republic of Balochistan and the separation of Balochistan from Pakistan? Even if so happens it would also directly affect the main article of Balochistan. MŠLQr (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, TOOSOON. e (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar pages exist like Somaliland, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Ambazonia, Transnistria. I think this page can exist citing that it's not officially recognized or as exile. A$ianeditorz (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asianeditorz: Don’t post WP:WHATABOUT arguments. GrabUp - Talk 02:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and Draftify. I understand the arguments for TOOSOON and NOTNEWS, but this could, let me stress, could evolve into something more notable. If we don't get anything reliable within the next couple days, i.e., resumed fighting in Balochistan and reliable sources other than Indian tabloids, then I'd support deletion. For now I think we should move this article to draftspace. —RidgelantRL (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Baloch nationalism, where this is mentioned in the first paragraph. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Republic of Balochistan

  Republic 2409:40D4:2050:E77C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Operation Herof 2.0 § Unilateral declaration of independence. The other suggested target no longer mentions the Republic of Balochistan. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unsure am I allowed to reply but I agree to move it under Balochistani Nationalism

  CD967119 (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Point 1: I'm quite sure that any user is generally allowed to reply in active deletion discussions by default. What makes you think you might not be?

  Point 2: Operation Herof 2.0 actually mentions the Republic in particular and would thus be a better redirect target than the nationalism article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per WP:TOO SOON and rationale provided above. Axedd (talk)

  Keep This page is supported by reliable and independent sources like India Today, The Print, Business Today, Firstpost etc. 117.237.11.141 (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, TOOSOON. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Republic of Sindhudesh and the separation of Sindhudesh from Pakistan? Even if so happens it would also directly affect the main article of Sindhudesh

  Firstly, the article has received significant coverage from reputable international news outlets, such as India Today, The Print, Business Today, Zee News, and WION. 2409:40D4:4:A5CE:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I agree, and besides way less notable self declared states are mentioned within this encyclopedia. This one has possible actual political consequences. VitoxxMass (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  

  Sindhi nationalism (Sindhi: 2409:40D4:11E9:B347:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. _saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs^⚔ 09:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, articles of other fringe unrecognized states exist as well so why not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TabahiKaBhagwan (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination rationale. BTWiki974 (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete As nomination - Arjayay (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's nothing but the nationalist POV pushing after recent conflict between India Pakistan whereby a relatively unknown writer's claims were heavily reported by mostly unreliable Indian media which were made basis of this article in start. The only reliable sources I see here are mostly being synthesized to support the article after nomination. Muneebll (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On 1947, the BLA announced through one of its spokesmen and activists, Mir Yar Baloch, on X, that they would soon release another announcement, asking for India to "allow Balochistan's official office, and embassy in Delhi".^[1] and declaring an official unilateral declaration of independence of what they proclaimed to be the newly founded Republic of Balochistan,^[2] stating that they were ready to print a new currency, passports and laws.^[1] 2409:40D4:34:6B5F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't know people could tweet on X all the way back in 1947. Either I got noclipped from my universe (where Twitter didn't exist until 2006) via the Mandela effect, or Elon Musk will convert an old Hyperloop into a time tunnel which he had used to go on Xcapades to help the Founding Fathers take over the airports. If he really will have had gone to such great fourngths to Xpand his business back in time, then he should be reported to the Chronosight team for operating a time machine without a license, going to the past without a passport, and going against consensus reality by making undiscussed edits to world history. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly too soon ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too far from reality. Orientls (talk)
• Delete per nom. This comes from Godi Media which often publish fake news as we have seen during the recent Indo-Pak conflict. 2400:ADC1:175:2B00:4164:37F:25E6:CE24 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Grabup. Coverage is too insignificant. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it has reliable sources. and you dont see many new countries now a days JaxsonR (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above discussion, this is too soon to create this article. AndySailz (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Republic of Balochistan, self-declared state in Western Asia a province of India

  2409:40D4:11F:CA13:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Same arguments as User:GrabUp and User:Muneebll, also see Fake news in India. And as indicated before by IP, this comes from Godi Media which have been publishing hilarious news as we have seen during the recent 2025 India–Pakistan conflict: Karachi Port destroyed, capital Islamabad captured, PM Shehbaz Sharif surrendered, Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir detained and this is only the tip of the iceberg, now another country declared JayFT047 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've created a source assessment table. You can help improve it by filling in more of the blanks. To be clear, my proposal to redirect this article to Operation Herof 2.0 § Unilateral declaration of independence still stands. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Too soon. Way too soon. The quasi-state has done little to make itself notable and that independence declaration is shoddy. As I said on the talk page of the article (I think), I believe it is being used to promote the Balochistan cause especially after I saw Logichulk's canvassing attempts. GarethBaloney 19:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As it is WP:TOOSOON. If it switches from a quasi state to state or no state, then it will have to be completely rewritten. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A large group of people in Balochistan geographical region self-declared themselves as an independent country, then this article should exist. WikiEditPS ^(TALK) 10:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WikiEditPS: This is not a policy based vote, specify hy you think delete voters are wrong, which policy support your claim? GrabUp - Talk 13:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which large group of people? Are there reliable sources covering that? MarioGom (talk) 20:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 India-Pakistan conflict ceasefire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is an undiscussed and largely redundant fork of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire. The "Global Reactions" section is a WP:QUOTEFARM consisting of generic quotes that hardly adds anything to the article. There isn't enough substantial additional content here to warrant a separate article. 9ninety (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. There is no need for this fork apart from all the other forks Soni (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire: no reason to have this as a separate, and largely duplicative, article. Redirect to the relevant section in the main article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTABLE, WP:GNG Ahammed Saad (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:JUSTAPOLICYVeritasVanguard☎ 12:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : this article need substatial ok, but it is (personal opinion:presumed) notable enough to keep RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no need to keep this article. The neutrality of the article is also questionable since the sources stated are extremely aligned with either side involved the conflict. This is making the content longer and confusing. Also, the negotiation process has only been elaborated by Pakistan and not India. In fact, India only stated the halt of its military operations as a result of an "understanding" and not that of any "ceasefire" in its statements by various senior officials. Aviator Jr (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't add anything of value to the whole India Pakistan conflict of 2025 whatever is here I'm sure it can be included in other relevant article. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to main article or expanse it. Great achievement (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 India–Pakistan conflict — 𝟷.𝟸𝟻𝚔𝚖 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔) 19:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article will have WP:NPOV problems. Even now it's focusing more on defaming one side rather than the topic in question.Banshee 007 (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but requires substantial rewrite and needs an autoconfirmed protection, as a lot of the article is in poor English and is subject to constant edit warring between people seeking to bolster one of the sides. The Reactions section has now reached a level of being longer than the entire rest of the article. DubiousVillain (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.64.207 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG. We also have Tashkent Declaration which concerns Indo-Pakistani war of 1965. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Passing GNG doesn't absolve it of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Tashkent Declaration can hardly be compared based on quality, and the fact that it ended a major war compared to a minor four-day conflict. 9ninety (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MergeVeritasphere (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:JV VeritasVanguard☎ 12:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Big enough thus merging won't work. The subject has enough international coverage to warrant an article. Orientls (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be "big enough", but the content itself is problematic, as it is largely a fork of 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire (which actually contains way more information). Half the article is a background section and a reactions section that is also problematic for being a messy quotefarm. merging won't work There isn't really anything to even merge looking at the section already in the original article. This is a pure content fork. 9ninety (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RAPID. It will be decided later whether it still deserves standalone article or not, but for now it is notable given the large numbers of international outlets significantly talking about it. Shankargb (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. This article is not needed for a four-day conflict. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree it's a four-day conflict but both sides are still accusing each other of violating the ceasefire and further conflict could escalate so we shouldn't delete it right now. Like @Shankargb said we should decide later whether it still deserves standalone article or not, but for now it is notable given the large numbers of international outlets significantly talking about it.

  Hiltonjohnson (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You should see WP:DELAY. I would've nominated it for merging instead if the ceasefire wasn't already fully covered by the parent article, making this article entirely redundant, besides being lower quality. If further conflict does escalate, then that will be covered in the conflict article, and also WP:NOTCRYSTAL. 9ninety (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. All set to meet WP:LASTING. Devopam (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this event hasn't proven lasting significance. And all these arguments still don't address the underlying problem of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. 9ninety (talk) 05:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a content fork because it is totally different from the section you are linking. Your wikilawyering and WP:BLUDGEONING are both unconvincing. This article will hold it's true value in future, as the main article will get it's logical closure in this one eventually Devopam (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I accept your accusation of bludgeoning and will not comment further. However, I believe that reasonably comparing the main content of the current article (i.e. the Negotiation process and Accusations of violations sections) with the ceasefire section of the parent article should make it clear which one is higher-quality, more complete and up-to-date, better-sourced and more informative about the topic. If I'm not wrong, a WP:CFORK doesn't only refer to a blatant copy, but can also mean a duplication of scope. Is there anything in this article not already covered by the conflict article? In fact, the exact opposite is true. It also possibly qualifies as a WP:POVFORK due to some conflicting or unsourced statements. If this article is to survive, at the very least a WP:PROPERSPLIT should be conducted from the parent page first. 9ninety (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the parent article for now. I see no reason for a WP:CFORK specifically for the ceasefire when it can be reasonably covered in the article on the overall conflict. JavaHurricane 05:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: The ceasefire is not notable on its own and its content can easily be merged with 2025 India-Pakistan conflict. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 2025 India–Pakistan conflict#Ceasefire 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Passes WP: GNG, subject is highly notable because it is getting coverage not only in India and Pakistan but across the globe. The "Reactions" section is a not anymore a WP:QUOTEFARM since it states statements made by officials from countries around the world.

  BangashTalib (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The ceasefire subject is highly notable on its own because this particular topic is getting coverage across the world,[79][80] and the details of the ceasefire are still being discussed.[81] It has been significantly expanded by Underdwarf58 in last few hours. There are articles also for other military agreements between Pakistan and India such as Simla Agreement, Tashkent Declaration, Agra summit and more. Those supporting merge are yet to show how this topic is not notable. Agletarang (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The "Reactions" section is very much a quotefarm (the fact that the quotes come from officials doesn't change this), and, without it, there isn't enough material to warrant a split. Notability, while established, is not the only factor to consider: WP:PAGEDECIDE mentions Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page, which seems to be the case here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Is easily able to be merged into the parent article as its size does not warrant a split. Yeoutie (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, I don't see why this information can't be covered in the parent article or why it warrants a split. Rexh17 (talk)

*DeleteWP:REDUNDANTFORK. Initially I considered deleting it but now I think its quite notable enough to Keep it at least for now.Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 08:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was initially considering merging this article into 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. But, that page has already become quite lengthy and is densely cited. In contrast, this article has now received enough RS cited coverage after afd and has developed well beyond its initial forked state. I believe it is better to keeping this as a separate article, given the depth of information and independent notability it has achieved. Mithilanchalputra, have a look at the article expanded coverage. Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Agletarang. Still getting lots of coverage. If anything, the whole 2025 India–Pakistan conflict is getting too big, thus this article concerning a highly notable ceasefire is entirely warranted. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (and redirect to the main article) under WP:TNT because the core of the current article, Negotiation process, is a tiny paragraph of mostly just US press releases claiming credit for the negotiations despite their lack of reliability, and half the article is Reactions blabla. It's likely that quality sources such as The Hindu and Dawn (newspaper) as well as some Western sources have proper information about the negotiations towards the ceasefire and the ceasefire itself, but so far essentially nothing of that is in the article. To justify a WP:SPLIT from the main article, some good sources would first need to be found and their information carefully and accurately summarised. Boud (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Either merge or delete, doesn't seem to be a stand-alone. M. Billoo 02:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This topic clearly warrants a standalone, checkout given the substantial length, extensive sourcing, and significant coverage dedicated solely to this issue. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is WP:LONGQUOTE and WP:MIRROR. M. Billoo 13:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Truth Layer 123 (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagykörút (periodical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

a weird article about a newspaper nobody knows. --Altenmann >talk 07:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seemingly only came out once. Geschichte (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this was the only issue. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, I myself am Hungarian and I have barely heard of this newspaper. Deltapug (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Jenő Rejtő (editor). Notability is not up to par. But redirect may be more merciful than delete. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gauteng Women's Development League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An under 16 football competition. Most of the sources and google news hits are from its broadcaster Supersport Schools. Fails GNG. Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Gauteng U/14 Women's Development League and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Gauteng U/16 Women's Development League. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gauteng Football Association (runs the league). Notability is not established. May be better to just redirect as the league is mentioned in redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gauteng Football Association – Per above. Svartner (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested, target is mentioned there. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RS:X Youth World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The list of championships includes only 13 events, none of which have their own Wikipedia article. This leads me to believe the page may violate notability guidelines. I think it should be merged back into the main article, as it doesn't meet the criteria for a standalone page. However, given the heavy reliance on primary sources, there may be little, if any, content worth merging. Johnson524 06:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can ever reach that conclusion. It is a World Championship formally recognised by the IOC recognised sporting body. To add to this it is the "Youth" World Championship on the same equipment as used in the Olympic Games hence a number of high profile sailors. All the content for this has been on wikipedia for a number of years in templates. As per a previously agreed policy with other editors who requested that the events side is not on the same page as the equipment these event pages for each title were created. The title definately meets the sports notability requirement although I doubt individual event do. I will work more on the referencing but even this is much better than the previous 10 years. I would say this page also demostrates the usefullness of wikipedia as the official website for the RS:X disappeared within 18 months of the equipment not being used as Olympic equipment. The event is no longer held. Yachty4000 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing significant independent coverage indicating notability. Mainly insider publications. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Alderete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [85], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [86] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this comment respectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Health and fitness, and Environment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [87]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz if she passes WP:NPROF then she does not need to pass WP:BIO as well. Based on her GS profile and similar cases in the past, she probably passes the bar for NPROF. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I admit I am also generally skeptical of WP:NPROF as setting too low a bar for notability among academics. I'm not a fan of h-index or other citation metrics for establishing notability since I think such metrics skew incentives for scientific investigation. Raw citation counts are also difficult to use since some fields can be much more citation-happy than others.

I took a brief look at three of Alderete's publications based on the weak keep votes, and I'm not impressed by the quality of the science in two so I am still sticking with my delete vote (the third was too specialized for me to understand well enough).

As an aside, the first paper I have concerns with are [88] which throws out measured infant masses in the methods section instead of using averages/standard deviations. I'd expect to get fired if I used such a method. Including standard deviations in mass would likely make the correlations appear much weaker than stated in the paper. The second is this one which does not include income as a potential confounding factor (incomes are generally lower near sources of pollution, and lower incomes mean healthier foods can be unaffordable, so could that be a more reasonable explanation for the observed correlation?). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree with you, I also feel this is a case just at the edge. However, the reason we are lenient for articles of professors / scientists is the Strickland case and the fact that its often fiendishly difficult for Wikipedians to judge academic research quality (and takes up a lot of time). Therefore peer assessment is what we go for and everything else borders on WP:OR. Personally, I am not familiar with the standard methodology for infant weight/length measurements, in some cases outlier removal is a valid method and treating outliers as if they come from a normally distributed set of values is also a mistake by itself. Maybe its just nontrivial to get a baby to hold still in a scale :-) ? I also agree that income could be a confounding factor for the other study, however they do mention they use parental education as a proxy for socioeconomic status so there is an attempt to control for it but there is no evidence to support this choice. Either way, it would be good if the discussion of the results would have included this limitation but it does not necessarily invalidate the whole study. --hroest 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep this person (just) passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 33 and 13 of her publications cited 100+ times. This indicates an impact in her academic field as per guidelines. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and repair. There were some very strange statements such as her currently being a postdoctoral scholar (at the same time as an associate professor), I removed that one as I don't believe it. Her h-index is borderline, as others have said, but her citation trend is very strongly increasing so I am OK to give her the benefit of the doubt. Someone badly needs to repair the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep While the Provost Award doesn't satisfy WP:PROF 2, it is nevertheless useful to look at what it is awarded for: "These awards will be granted in recognition of a particular piece of research, scholarship, or creative work that has made a significant contribution to the field and that reflects the accomplishments and promise of the recipient" (emphasis added). WP:PROF 1 is: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Taken together with the arguments above, it's probably reasonable to give her the benefit of the doubt. h-index counting is silly, and for WP:PROF 1a it's not as if there is a moment when someone's contribution suddenly switches from not significant to significant. What is clear now is that her work is being regularly and increasingly cited by her peers, and at least one panel that evaluated her work determined that it constituted a significant contribution to her field.

a bunch of penguins (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your conclusion of Weak keep, I have to disagree about two of your statements. First, the Provost award is just that, an award from her employer who is not a disinterested party. It is not a distinguished chair. Her midterm award is more significant as it is more independent, but still not enough by itself.

Second, unless a BLP is in one's personal field, an h-index is the most reliable metric of what an academic's peers think of their work. While you or I may think that one of our papers is wonderful, what counts is whether others do. With standard caveats about math (and perhaps one or two other) and also discipline scaling, h-factors are WP:NPOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I should say that I think I'm generally on the "slightly more disposed to give the benefit of the doubt re notability" side of things, so I'd be happy if this turned out to be a keep. However, I am always mindful of not wishing to be chided about accepting dubious articles at WP:NPP! Hence this AfD. @Ldm1954 you mentioned discipline scaling and I would love to know how the subject's h-index sits with respect to her peers and co-authors in the environmental and health sciences field. If she were reasonably above average, then I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Reyes Marión (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was an officer in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but hardly a "national hero". I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meets WP:GNG. Pasados (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole article depends on a single source. CharlesWain (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he were a National Hero, it would not be hard for him to meet WP:SIGCOV or to at least get info from more than one source. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the source already in the article, there is a paragraph (9 lines) about him in "Soldados de la Independencia, Generales de la Restauración1." Edición Conmemorativa 150 años del triunfo de la Guerra Restauradora, 1865-2015 84.190 (2015), p 56 [89], and his name appears in many other histories, with publication dates from 1900 to 2004, of which I can only see snippet views in Google Books. The article needs editing (and a Talk page). RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of RebeccaGreen Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the two sources identified by RebeccaGreen. There are also 15 hits in Books search, not necessarily WP:SIGCOV but difficult to tell due to language and snippets. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perl Object-Oriented Persistence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only two sources currently linked in the article are self-promotional (from the creator of the POOP system or instructional websites explaining Perl). WP:BEFORE search yields coverage of Object-oriented programming, but I'm not seeing significant coverage of this specific acronym or concept within reliable sources - so, POOP fails WP:NSOFT. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Computing. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 04:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also not seeing significant coverage. Could redirect to Object database as an alternative. General concept of object persistence is clearly notable, but this specific implementation in perl is likely not notable enough for its own page. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Perl or delete. A concept proposed by 2 Perl module authors that did not seem to gain much traction beyond the obvious joke. MarioGom (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Rugby League World Cup qualification play-off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Was redirected to 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying but reverted. As per WP:SPORTSEVENT: Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Rugby league, Lebanon, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - agree with nominator, ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable enough Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please advise which notability criterion this meets. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, and the match details are already included on the 2000 Rugby League World Cup qualifying page. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I previously redirected the page. Article is too small to warrant its own page, in addition deletion should occur for the same rational listed by the nominator. Mn1548 (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – nothing here that is not in the main qualification article. A google search gave a couple of articles in The Independent, one about a Lebanon player/assistant coach being refused entry to the US and the one that gives the match report, but not much else to indicate notability. EdwardUK (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember, this saves not disc space, but all it does is remove it from the Public view. I think unless it is a copyright violation or other serious violations, these things should be kept TBH. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Servite et contribuere, your statements don't address how notability is met. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  LibStar Huh? Next of all, I might honestly change my vote to redirect the more I think about it. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had considered redirect as an option, but as an aid to navigation there seems little value in it, the only direct link appears to be from Michael Coorey and that could easily be changed. The other links are all via two navboxes so would be removed anyway. EdwardUK (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]