Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 1

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

The result was delete‎. It's snowing. ✗plicit 00:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asaba Jumah (born 2005) (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 PROD, only mentions anywhere are on blog sites, social media and a site called "Jetbits" (freeware maybe?) Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 23:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Zero sourcing found, only another article in draft space and a wix site. Very non notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Video games, Computing, Internet, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All the sources are not reliable and a WP:Before did not yield any positive results. The subject fails WP:GNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reasoning has been provided why the current sources are all unsuitable. NAUME GOU (talk) 11:45, 02 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant sources found to establish notability for subject. Fails WP:GNG Frank Ken (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please sir that article I think it is good of sourcs NAUME GOU (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Regards,  KB~Abhiimanyu7  talk  14:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG no significant refrences to support topic. ⋆⁺ ཐི Wakabenga ཋྀ ⁺⋆ (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks In-depth coverage for this person, not notable to be on Wikipedia. Non-independent sources like Bayelsaunitedfc.com.ng do not contribute to notability. No evidence of notable achievements or widespread recognition in reliable, independent sources. The article does not justify retention. Editz2341231 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per the existing arguments for deletion, and since someone asked, because the existing citations are all self-published by the article's subject. Rubbish coverage. Yue🌙 07:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TzarN64 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly fails notability. Given sources are primary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some sources but not reliable sources for GNG. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is undoubtedly failing notability.Almandavi (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability aside, this is unambiguously self promotion, given that article creator had posted the article subject's face (for some reason AI art) at his user page, proving him to be the same individual as the article's subject and making this article appropriate for deletion through WP:G11. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and has no reliable sourcing. MidnightMayhem 11:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wuith snowboots on. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom says does fail WP:ANYBIO. A further review from foreign language WP might be interesting, but from a cursory review still fails. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs Opening Day starting pitchers (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:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication of meeting WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Pennsylvania. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. This is pure trivia/fancruft about a minor league baseball club. No SIGCOV on the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The list documents a recurring, specific role that’s consistently covered in local news and team media. As a yearly thing, Opening Day starters are a recognized part of a team’s season narrative. They attention every year from sources like MiLB.com, and team press releases. here’s nothing random or fancrufty about it if I am going to be honest with you. If the issue is sourcing, that can be fixed. I think there’s enough here to improve the article rather than delete it. Same thing applies with the other one.

  TBJ10RH (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You would need multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic. Routine news coverage announcing who will be that year's opening-day pitcher does not suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That can be easily fixable but validating the page for AFD is a bit too much in my opinion. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge. There are no independent reliable sources in this list which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. In other words, it must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merger targets for the information are List of Lehigh Valley IronPigs seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of historic rosters may be relevant, but I don't see why opening day is significant. Reywas92^Talk 02:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Listen, I get it. But, Opening Day starters hold special weight in baseball. Even at the minor league level, teams and media highlight who gets the ball to start the season. Usually the local papers, MiLB.com, and team press releases often call attention to it. It’s more than just a roster detail. If the concern is that the article doesn’t yet show why it's significant, that feels like something we can fix through edits. Maybe by adding brief context or citations. Not by removing the article entirely. This seems like a case where cleanup or improvement would serve Wikipedia better than deletion. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: MiLB.com and team press releases are not "independent" and have no bearing on whether the topic passes the GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs)

  In Major League Baseball, opening day starters are discussed frequently in independent sources. I cannot say the same for the minor leagues. Please note that coverage by teams, is not independent, nor considered reliable for encyclopedia purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note that going forward on the articles later. Thank you TBJ10RH (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are not a free web host for baseball trivia. There are lots of other places for that, but not a charity that does not take advertising. Bearian (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gwinnett Stripers Opening Day starting pitchers (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:INDISCRIMINATE. No indication this passes WP:NLIST. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Baseball, and Georgia (U.S. state). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is pure trivia/fancruft about a minor league baseball club. No SIGCOV on the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. The list documents a recurring, specific role that’s consistently covered in local news and team media. As a yearly thing, Opening Day starters are a recognized part of a team’s season narrative. They attention every year from sources like MiLB.com, Gwinnett Daily Post, and team press releases. here’s nothing random or fancrufty about it if I am going to be honest with you. If the issue is sourcing, that can be fixed. I think there’s enough here to improve the article rather than delete it. Same thing applies with the other one. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need multiple independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the topic. Routine news coverage announcing who will be that year's opening-day pitcher does not suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That can be easily fixable but validating the page for AFD is a bit too much in my opinion. TBJ10RH (talk) 01:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's easly fixable, please provide the "Three best sources" (or even "two") that provide in depth coverage of the topic. Cbl62 (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge. There are no independent reliable sources in this list which indicate that WP:LISTN is met. In other words, it must be shown why this deserves to be a standalone list, as opposed to part of the team's article. Just because individual parts of the list can be cited, it does not mean that the sum total of the parts are notable as a list. Further, I found no previous discussion that this should be be split from the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merger targets for the information are List of Gwinnett Stripers seasons or the team's article. Flibirigit (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that the list may lack a few independent sources, and I thank you for the feedback, however Opening Day starters are a recurring, notable tradition in baseball that's routinely covered by teams and local media. The list reflects that tradition, not just a collection of facts. It can be improved with context and sourcing, but that’s an editing issue, not a reason to delete. Splitting it from the main article makes sense given its focus and the precedent from similar baseball lists. If you truly have some problems with the article, I can make some changes to add more independent sources that could be deemed reliable although I may need a specific list of those. TBJ10RH (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In Major League Baseball, opening day starters are discussed frequently in independent sources. I cannot say the same for minor league. Please note that coverage by teams, is not independent, nor considered reliable for encyclopedia purpose. Flibirigit (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Will do, thank you Flib TBJ10RH (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A list of who pitched for a minor league baseball team on the opening day of each of their seasons is totally pointless. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - again, for the fans in the peanut gallery - we are not a free web host for baseball trivia. There are lots of other places for that, but not a charity that does not take advertising. Bearian (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Internet top-level domains#Europe. asilvering (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.hamburg (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)

Non-notable domain name that is used in one city. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Germany. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not really anything that covers this domain that is not primary.

  Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 14:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Internet top-level domains#Europe ApexParagon (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Elliot (shipwreck) (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)

Unnotable sinking of a lighter (barge). Wikipedia is not a (maritime) newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The government database entry that is the main source for this article lists five sources. The first two [1] [2] are routine newspaper announcements that do not contribute towards notability. I can't access any of the three book sources, but from the pages I can preview they all seem to just provide listings of shipwrecks and their coordinates, and therefore don't contribute towards notability either. I couldn't find any additional sources on Trove or elsewhere. MCE89 (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Moreton Bay. Cinder painter (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Gruber (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)

Footballer that fails WP:GNG, no sources beyond profiles and stats from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: NOTSTATS Fails WP:NSPORTS. The notability criteria is more than a pseudo biography and not a resume. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep This guy played for fair sized clubs including Lech Poznań and a lot of football at that, he played at the top of his game and played European games. Playing football is not a NOTSTATS issue. I don't know how much media coverage he had in the countries he played for at the time, but I am betting on newspapers here. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Yes there does seem to be coverage issue, but the internet at this time, is not at the same level on the region, it was still being built up in Serbia at that time. It doesn't help the fact he played during a time of strong geo-political issues in the region. So that might negate searches. I am going to assume good faith here for my weak keep. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with @Govvy Боки 💬 📝 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Even though he played in smaller centers, he had spells at important clubs in those places, didn't he really find any WP:SIGCOV? Svartner (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• AFD Patrol. While there is no clear consensus, the evident lack of SIGCOV is a strong policy-compliant argument. Spartathenian (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In all this discussion no SIGCOV has been produced. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of the required IRS SIGCOV sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to FreeBSD#Foundation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FreeBSD Foundation (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 organisation Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Colorado. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Redirect to FreeBSD#Foundation where important info is already included.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is certainly a notable organization that has coverage in sources. I think this article needs improvement, not deletion. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch Can you provide examples of significant coverage? I have found no WP:SIGCOV about the foundation that meets the requirements of WP:NORG. Anything in depth I've found about the foundation relies of heavily on interviews which does not meet requirements for establishing notability under WP:NORG. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to FreeBSD#Foundation. All coverage seems to be passing mentions in articles about FreeBSD. MarioGom (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Just noting that only one editor here who is arguing for Keep has less than 200 edits, others are more experienced, particularly Bearian. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Steel (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 declined a G5 as an IP had some copyediting, but that might be a sock of the original banned editor, and I don't know enough about Indian companies to determine if the organisation is notable or not. So here's a discussion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found the subject notable. Sources cited in the article like The Indian Express, Times of India, and several others are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. SATavr (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was ready to go for delete, but there are actual facts and good sources. It certainly needs more work, but it appears to be notable on close examination. Bearian (talk) 09:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and keep improving. If sockpuppetry and editing by COI IP users continues, I would suggest protecting the article to allow editing only by autoconfirmed users in order to prevent further disruption. The article requires substantial improvement, particularly in the sections beyond the lead, and needs better referencing. However the subject appears to meet notability criteria with sufficient significant and critical coverage available through Google search results.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the Keep !voters have identified any sources that meets WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, that is in-depth "independent content" about the orgnization. "Independent Content" means content which isn't entirely reliant on press releases, announcements, interviews or other content regurtitated from company sources. For example, this Times of India article referred to above is not Independent (as in "independent content") and is not in-depth. It is 7 sentences long and 2 of the sentences are directly attributed to the company, with the rest relying entirely on information provided by the company with no independent commentary or analysis, article fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in New Indian Express is a single sentence - that is not in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP meets at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content". And i can see some references in Google search that pass the criteria. Syam Steel Case Study, Economic Times, The Times of India, Business Today and The Economic Times. B-Factor (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's take a look at the aforementioned sources in more detail and point out why they fail NCORP - happy to listen to a counter-argument if you disagree

• This "case study" is written by a Amazon AWS because the topic company uses their services. That isn't "independent content", that's advertising, fails ORGIND
• This from Economic Times is a press release from the company and fails ORGIND. For example, you can find the exact same article reguritated in different publications such as here, here, here and here.
• This repeats what the company announced (and acknowledges this in the article text) with no independent content (e.g. commentary/analysis/etc). You can find the same announcement regurgitated here. Fails ORGIND.
• This is a mere mention with no in-depth information (not even a complete sentence) about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
• Finally, this article (which is 7 sentences) is also entirely based on company PR and contains no "independent content". Of the seven sentences, four are directly attributed to a company official. You can also find the exact same information in different publications such as this and this (which acknowledges it is PR). Fails ORGIND.

Regurgitated PR does not meet NCORP criteria. I'm happy to take another look if you can point out which paragraphs in which sources you believe contains independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Research shows that it is 70 Years old company employing more than 2000 people. In old days there were no online media. But i am sure there must be some print news of the subject. And there are online references that support the notability criteria of this company. I suggest that this page should not be deletedAlmandavi (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There appears to be an influx of editors here with less than 200 edits each, using similar reasoning but without providing any analysis of *why* particular sources meet NCORP, and without identifying sections within those source which contain in-depth independent content. AfD doesn't simply count !votes, and especially at NCORP-related AfD's where we require adequate sourcing. If the topic company is notable, we should at least be able to find sourcing and identify and explain why it meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moed Ahmed (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)

Masscreated LUGSTUB with no credible assertion of notability under WP:NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Do not propose a Merge or Redirection if you don't have a target article in mind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find any coverage and there does not seem to be an appropriate redirect target. Please ping me if coverage is found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Moed Ahmed's cricket career lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WRC Rally Magazine (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 clearly fails the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for TV. This is a TV show that seems to have been a one-off for the Monte Carlo Rally, lasting for just one season. This smells of promotion, too. There also aren't any citations, and there has been a citations tag since December 2009, 16 years ago. This article must be deleted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Speed, cannot find anything substantive online Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A very WP:MILL pre-race show; just stated the latest results, did some profiles and previewed the next race, all of which are well expected and basic out of any pre-race show. And I agree with the nominator's PROMO concerns, as the article was created when it aired. Nathannah • 📮 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom/others. Reluctant to redirect because it is a pretty generic title, and I'm sure that there are magazines (like the paper ones) about WRC. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to ChevoBeatz. Most of the keep !votes have been rebutted or were written by a robot that does not understand our guidelines, and we have a clear WP:ATD by redirecting to the artist's article as suggested by the first comment. Any editor is welcome to merge in content from the redirect history. asilvering (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shatta Gyal (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)

Does not come close to meeting WP:NSONG. Sources are trivial mentions, promotional in nature, and/or from unreliable sites. The creator of the article also seems to be dealing with COI issues. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Netherlands, and Jamaica. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into ChevoBeatz per rationale by nom, along with Time's Dread. Can we still tag the other song on? Subject needs all material pulled together for a near-decent article and for the GNG. gidonb (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm reluctant to delete a song that made it on to two different national charts. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d say calling the “Hype Tv Jamaica” chart a notable WP:CHART would be a stretch. Even then, charting alone does not confer notability, especially considering the dearth of in-depth coverage available. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep song has charted Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 09:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Charting alone does not confer notability, as per NSONG. JTtheOG (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep song has charted. Barr Theo (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:VOTE. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep not only has the song charted, but I did a brief source analysis. Covered in two seeminygly reputable Surinamese newspapers -- De West and De Ware Tijd, two newspapers with among the highest circulations in Suriname. We also have a tabloid-esque source in the Jamaica Star. With the charting and De West and De Ware Tijd, looks like notability guidelines are met. Not that is article doesn't have problems, it could be vastly improved, with grammar and NPOV. It looks like the nominator did not perform an adequate WP:BEFORE check.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AnonymousScholar49: I heard you'd appreciate the ping. Looking at the extent of the coverage about the song in those two sources:

  The talented Dutch music producer with Surinamese-Indian roots, ChevoBeatz, has made it to the Argentine Billboard 100 list with two songs. These are the songs 'Shatta Gyal' a collaboration with the dancehall artist FireVerse and 'Bamba' with the singer Chuma Afrika from Kenya. This milestone also received a notification on the platform of Billboard Argentina under the heading: 'ChevoBeatz explora fronteras musicales'. –De West

  The promising Surinamese-Dutch music producer ChevoBeatz has reached the Billboard Argentina Hot 100 list with his song 'Shatta Gyal', a collaboration with the Jamaican Dancehall artist FireVerse. The song was at the 87th position on the list. There is also a story dedicated to him in the Argentinean Billboard Magazine under the headline: 'ChevoBeatz explora fronteras musicales'. –De Ware Tijd

  They also both include eerily similar versions of the same text later on in the articles:

  In addition to his existing collaborations, he is looking for opportunities to work with more artists from all over the world. His passion for creating diverse and captivating music knows no bounds, and he is constantly trying to push the boundaries of his creative skills. –DW

  In addition to his existing collaborations, he is looking for opportunities to work with even more artists from all over the world. His passion for creating captivating music knows no bounds. ChevoBeatz is constantly trying to push the boundaries. –DWT

  Lastly, both articles feature similar photos, one of which is attributed to the "ChevoBeatz collection". Further analysis of the sources has convinced me that even these pieces from more established publications are more of the same explicitly promotional content. It also makes me kind of sad how much of this sort of paid content exists online in general. Alas... Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi JTtheOG, thanks for your thoughtful input.

  Regarding the concern about promotional content: you’re right that some of the sources have a tone that leans promotional, but that alone doesn’t disqualify the subject under Wikipedia’s notability standards. Per WP:GNG, what’s most important is that the subject has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject — which this article does. Examples include DancehallMag, Jamaica Observer, and the Billboard Argentina charting, which indicate coverage beyond simple self-promotion or trivial mention.

  Even if the tone in parts of the article still needs refinement, that’s something that can and should be fixed editorially. Wikipedia policy WP:PRESERVE encourages improving content rather than deleting subjects that are notable but may need work.

  So while your concern is totally valid, there seems to be a solid foundation here for a neutral, encyclopedic article with further cleanup — not deletion.

  Alat Cheers! DataTrekker (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi DataTrekker; thank you for your input as well. DancehallMag is four sentences of direct coverage and Jamaica Observer is a single trivial mention. No matter their reliability or independence, they are not significant, in-depth coverage. As you correctly pointed out, GNG requires coverage that is independent, reliable, and significant. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, JTtheOG, totally fair to scrutinize the depth of coverage.

  That said, I’d argue the DancehallMag piece goes beyond a trivial mention. While brief, it offers unique commentary on the artist’s impact in reggae from a third-party perspective. Likewise, the Jamaica Observer coverage is not just a name-drop but ties into a broader cultural context. Per WP:SIGCOV, coverage doesn’t need to be lengthy — it just needs to examine the subject in some detail, which these do.

  Also, the subject’s charting on Billboard Argentina isn’t a mere stat — it reflects measurable cultural relevance, which Wikipedia recognizes as a notability indicator (see WP:NMUSIC). When combined with independent reporting, this points toward notability, even if some sources are concise.

  If tone or structure is the concern, let’s focus on cleanup. Deletion seems unnecessary when the base notability criteria are arguably met. DataTrekker (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. While the song charted on Billboard Argentina and Hype TV Jamaica, these achievements alone aren't notable. Most sources are promotional or trivial mentions, and there's no in-depth analysis of the song's impact or significance. Per WP:NSONG, notability requires more than just chart positions. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep – The coverage in DancehallMag and Jamaica Observer shows that the artist has received attention from independent sources that offer more than just brief mentions. These articles touch on the artist’s presence in the reggae/dancehall scene, indicating some level of critical or cultural interest. In addition, charting on Billboard Argentina points to measurable recognition outside of local or niche circles. While the article may benefit from cleanup, the core notability criteria under WP:NMUSIC appear to be met. Deletion doesn’t seem necessary here. ~~~~ 2001:1C0F:285:6E00:950F:5058:7FC8:42BF (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources have been addressed. Please log in to !vote as your comment looks very similar to others here. JTtheOG (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Sarcopterygii. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cladistic classification of Sarcopterygii (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 appears to have been created with the sole purpose of being a taxonomic list not based on the classification of any particular author. I tried replacing some of the content with actual published classifications, though without actually expecting this page to evolve into something useful. Everything that can be included here can also be included in Sarcopterygii. Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:43, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sarcopterygii. There is value in presenting alternative classification systems - the one used on WP is not necessarily the "right" one, and several are more recent than that one. However, there is no need to have a separate article for these. Place under Sarcopterygii#Classification. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested and is reasonable. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to All-time Philadelphia Union roster. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Anding (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 am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Some coverage: PennLive, Philly Inquirer, Patch.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with e.g. PennLive, which was 700 words on him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @GiantSnowman: in case he did not see Beanie's comment. JTtheOG (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PennLive is good - not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 12:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At the very least, this should be redirected to All-time Philadelphia Union roster as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion as there are editors objecting to Deletion stance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The Penn Live article mentioned above is all I can find as well, other than the team's website. I don't see enough sourcing to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would support a redirect to All-time Philadelphia Union roster. Pinging @GiantSnowman: and @Oaktree b: Cheers, JTtheOG (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess, he's had a rather limited career. The all-time roster would have him listed I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am fine with a redirect. GiantSnowman 18:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to All-time Philadelphia Union roster - As suggested per Let's run and JTtheOG. Svartner (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colts–Jaguars rivalry (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 have coverage from sources discussing a rivalry, and as such WP:NRIVALRY is not met. Article was recreated after being deleted in a earlier deletion discussion and while this version has more sourcing, it still does not have sources to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Florida, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Delete No sources seem to cover the rivalry in-depth. The sheer number of routine coverage articles seems like a WP:REFBOMB, so it's difficult to say for sure whether all 100+ sources have no significant coverage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Clear pass of WP:NRIVALRY from my perspective. As much as I've supported getting rid of a number of rivalry articles, I can't fathom deleting one about two division rivals who have played each other twice a year for 23 years. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG level coverage discussing the rivalry in-depth. Which sources do you thing cover this series as a rivalry? Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not an expert on NFL rivalries, but a quick search in Newspapers.com reveals many sources discussing the pairing as a rivalry. E.g., (1) "Colts, Jaguars renew rivalry", (2) "Colts-Jaguars South rivalry getting intense" (part 1/part 2), (3) "Rivalry has evolved quickly", (4) "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry", (5) "Young rivalry gets stirred up", (6) "Colts' 'rivalry' fires up Jags" - early article discussing factors (part 1/part 2), (7) "There's no love lost: Plenty of bad blood between rivals Colts, Jaguars". Why doesn't such extensive coverage reporting on the rivalry show that there is or was a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, I think that most of these pieces are merely WP:ROUTINE game previews where the term 'rivalry' is used as a buzzword by journalists to try and get more people to read their paper, and do not cover the history of the purported 'rivalry' in-depth as needed to meet the guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Cbl62's sources. WP:NRIVALRY is one sentence deep and really shouldn't be used as the crutch for rivalry articles anyways. This would be a better way of calling it what it is User:Conyo14/Sports rivalries. Conyo14 (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is more of divisional opponents rather than rivalry, since the two have had different eras of success, I wouldn't say it's a fierce rivalry, but I wouldn't say it's worthy of it's own page.

I'd say a similar thing about the Jaguars-Texans rivalry. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the sources presented by Cbl62 appear to be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources do you think provide WP:SIGCOV of the rivalry itself, beyond WP:ROUTINE game coverage/previews? Let'srun (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet. A source review would br helpful. One thing I've seen over the years is that WP:ROUTINE is in the eye of the beholder.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Some further notes on a couple of the sources cited above:

Source (3) is a three-column feature story from a highly reputable source (the Associated Press) expressly focused on the rivalry published under the headline "Rivalry has evolved quickly." It traces the history of "a trash-talking atmosphere", the recent history of past games, the "geeked up" approach of the players to facing each other, and concludes in no uncertain terms that "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry."

Source (7) reviews the rivalry's 17-game history, the close finish in 13 of the 17 games, the "brutally competitive" nature of the games, the history of trash-talking including Colts referring to Jax as "our little brother", and a focus on the "bad blood" between the rivals ("They don't like us. We don't like them.")

Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources provided by Cb162. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 02:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Haven't voted previously. After weighing everything, this seems like a keeper. Cbl62 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Colts and Jaguars have been division rivals since 2002, playing each other twice every season. Multiple articles, like the Associated Press piece titled "Rivalry has evolved quickly," discuss the history and intensity of their matchups. This coverage goes beyond routine game reports and meets the criteria for significant coverage. Per WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries with such consistent and notable coverage warrant their own articles. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am surprised to learn that this is a notable rivalry, but the sources provided indicate that it is. Rlendog (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per references presented by Cbl62, which establish notability as a rivalry. Frank Anchor 12:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline.- that what WP:NRIVALRY indicates. I see good reliable sourcing, and the provided one by the fellow above. So, this rivalry meets GNG. Cinder painter (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau (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)

Fails WP:NSONG. Sricsi (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked at the sources on the song's page, and I think that this song is the subject of enough sources to meet WP:NSONG. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 04:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep, basically per Opm581. BD2412 T 02:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The track doesn't meet WP:NSONGS, no chart performance either. Kirtap92 (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per Kirtap92. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not relevant - please comment the actual sources Geschichte (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to source album, Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (Withdrawn by nominator) (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 21:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tucsonians for a Clean Environment (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)

As far as I can tell, none of the sources actually discuss the article subject, for which the article is effectively a large background section, but neither cites nor discusses. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, United States of America, and Arizona. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it has even 2 dedicated reference articles in Oxford Reference (accessible via WP:TWL). See this article at the The Oxford Encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States, pretty in-depth coverage, and there are also passages from other of their articles about the topic. There's plenty of mentions found via Google Books and Google Scholar, I didn't check them, but an Oxford Reference entry makes me presume notability. MarioGom (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Auguste (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 was created for an assumed victor of an MP race in the 2025 Canadian federal election. A recount later confirmed that this candidate in fact lost the seat to the incumbent, and since Canadian MP articles are only created for actual race winners, this article no longer meets the wikipedia notability standard. The simple fact that this person was initially assumed to have won the race for three days does not change this. This info can be reflected on the incumbent's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchMonth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSD does this fall under? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. It will go to an automatic recount - this first flip was from an initial validation for obvious errors - and there's a possibility of it flipping again. Better to have this in the drafts than outright deleting. @ArchMonth and Rushtheeditor: If we have agreement on this can be out of mainspace now instead of waiting for the AFD to close. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be what happened to Draft:Honveer Singh Randhawa when Surrey-Guildford was initially called by some outlets then flipped after all the votes came in. WP:G13 would apply eventually if nothing happens. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The judicial recount in question hasn't yet taken place. What happened was the pre-recount numbers being updated during an Elections Canada validation process, so it could end up being reversed again once the recount occurs. I'm not sure offhand if there is a precedent for pending situations like this. If the recount confirms Sinclair-Desgagné's victory, I would be fully in support. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see @Patar knight's comments while writing mine, I agree with draftify. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: seems fine, if this person wins, the article goes live; if not, we don't quite have enough for notability. Could be a brief mention in the riding article if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Canada, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft It is appropriate to send to draft space if the discussion closes prior to knowledge of the official result. --Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft is perhaps the best choice for now, and a final decision can be made next week! --ArchMonth
• Draft per above. The initial count showed a very narrow LPC victory, whereas the recount yielded a Bloc win of 44 votes. As another recount is under way, it remains possible that the LPC might take back this riding. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 12:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold until the judicial recount. The results that flipped the riding are "validated" results, which means counted by the district's returning officer. The election night live count is "preliminary" results (counts submitted by poll workers), then each district's returning officer submits an official validated count, which often change vote counts slightly and also include the rejected ballot count. Every riding eventually posts validated results, but it takes a while (about a third are reporting now). Next, any district where the margin of victory is less than 0.1% of the votes cast automatically goes to a judicial recount, which is what will happen with this district but has not happened yet, so we don't actually know what the final numbers will be. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft No notability, but the judge hasn't stuck a fork in it yet. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify for now, so that we can restore it if she wins the recount and delete it from draftspace if she loses. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Normally I would not go with the draftspace as an option, as a reviewer on AfC. However, this is an example of where it works. I agree with Bearcat, move the article to draftspace until after the judicial recount, and then if she loses, delete from draftspace per NPOL. I think that also gives opportunity to editors to find additional sources for Auguste while in Draft. Bkissin (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and wait for the recount. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I think we should use Draftify more often as an option. This is a good example for it. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling Zone (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)

Only the most passing of mentions or sources that don't mention the company. A BEFORE search didn't turn up anything that meets WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - per A412. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NCORP. None of the references discuss the article subject besides Gambling Insider, which is a reprint of a company announcement. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify, recent creation not fit for mainspace yet and by an account that apparently gamed autoconfirmed to post to mainspace. No objection to deletion if there is consensus for that. MarioGom (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like to needs further relevant references to be kept. 110 and 135 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NCORP. The article lacks significant independent coverage; existing references are either passing mentions or reprints of company announcements. No evidence of notability beyond routine listings. Unclasp4940 (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of sheriffs of Daviess County, Kentucky (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:V as no sources seem to have researched this information before. The page, which has no citations, is likely a combination of synthesis and original research. The page further fails WP:N as Daviess County has a population of about 100,000; much larger places lack articles listing their sheriffs. Mad Mismagius (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Kentucky. Shellwood (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:GNG. This is verifiable official sheriff website, but does not receive significant coverage as a role in the county government that is not the head. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:LIST, and more importantly, WP:NOTWEBHOST. There is a very thin line between "that's an interesting list of trivia and your special interest is nice" and "this is stealing storage space from a charity that is under investigation from a Fascist regime." Bearian (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scannata (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)

Unsourced, WP:NOTDICT, etc. This was originally obfuscated spam for a record company but the creator removed the spammy part after I applied G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per not dictionary. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom. It is just like any other word - not notable enough to have an article. Asteramellus (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Auguste (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 was created for an assumed victor of an MP race in the 2025 Canadian federal election. A recount later confirmed that this candidate in fact lost the seat to the incumbent, and since Canadian MP articles are only created for actual race winners, this article no longer meets the wikipedia notability standard. The simple fact that this person was initially assumed to have won the race for three days does not change this. This info can be reflected on the incumbent's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchMonth (talk • contribs) 20:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as per above. Rushtheeditor (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which WP:CSD does this fall under? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. It will go to an automatic recount - this first flip was from an initial validation for obvious errors - and there's a possibility of it flipping again. Better to have this in the drafts than outright deleting. @ArchMonth and Rushtheeditor: If we have agreement on this can be out of mainspace now instead of waiting for the AFD to close. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This would be what happened to Draft:Honveer Singh Randhawa when Surrey-Guildford was initially called by some outlets then flipped after all the votes came in. WP:G13 would apply eventually if nothing happens. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The judicial recount in question hasn't yet taken place. What happened was the pre-recount numbers being updated during an Elections Canada validation process, so it could end up being reversed again once the recount occurs. I'm not sure offhand if there is a precedent for pending situations like this. If the recount confirms Sinclair-Desgagné's victory, I would be fully in support. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see @Patar knight's comments while writing mine, I agree with draftify. — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 01:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draft: seems fine, if this person wins, the article goes live; if not, we don't quite have enough for notability. Could be a brief mention in the riding article if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Canada, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft It is appropriate to send to draft space if the discussion closes prior to knowledge of the official result. --Enos733 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft is perhaps the best choice for now, and a final decision can be made next week! --ArchMonth
• Draft per above. The initial count showed a very narrow LPC victory, whereas the recount yielded a Bloc win of 44 votes. As another recount is under way, it remains possible that the LPC might take back this riding. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 12:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold until the judicial recount. The results that flipped the riding are "validated" results, which means counted by the district's returning officer. The election night live count is "preliminary" results (counts submitted by poll workers), then each district's returning officer submits an official validated count, which often change vote counts slightly and also include the rejected ballot count. Every riding eventually posts validated results, but it takes a while (about a third are reporting now). Next, any district where the margin of victory is less than 0.1% of the votes cast automatically goes to a judicial recount, which is what will happen with this district but has not happened yet, so we don't actually know what the final numbers will be. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft No notability, but the judge hasn't stuck a fork in it yet. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify for now, so that we can restore it if she wins the recount and delete it from draftspace if she loses. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Normally I would not go with the draftspace as an option, as a reviewer on AfC. However, this is an example of where it works. I agree with Bearcat, move the article to draftspace until after the judicial recount, and then if she loses, delete from draftspace per NPOL. I think that also gives opportunity to editors to find additional sources for Auguste while in Draft. Bkissin (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and wait for the recount. Moondragon21 (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify I think we should use Draftify more often as an option. This is a good example for it. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One-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)

Nothing more than a word definition, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. One-off (disambiguation) should be moved here. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not dictionary, does not show notability that would satisfy own page.Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom. It is just a regular word - not a significant notable word to have an article. Also, 3 of the cited sources have just the regular usage of word "one-off" (just like any other word) mentioned once or twice. Asteramellus (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I also agree. WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies here. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is already an adequate entry in Wiktionary, merge is not neccesary.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I could say more, but that explains it when it is so clear that the article covers a definition only. Wiktionary is where this belongs. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Community College (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 refs on the page since 2013. Nothing much to suggest that this sub-degree level private education provider would meet the notability standards for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. JMWt (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After taking some time to look for sources that could be used to satisfy notability, I found nothing of substance. There seems to be a couple of CBC articles referencing WP:ILLCON and not much else. – AllCatsAreGrey ^(talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Hard Keep: I found 3 great sources to prove notability. I cleaned up the article significantly. They were involved in a controversy that the CBC covered - this is more than enough to keep this article. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Also no chances for expansion. Lorstaking (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it doesn't appear to be what most of our readers would call a community college, but rather a private vocational school. So it's not automatically notable, and the coverage isn't significant. Bearian (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no real coverage in WP:RS except the lawsuit which isnt really enough to base an article on, see also WP:ILLCON. --hroest 16:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: changed my mind based on comments above and WP:ILLCON. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred VII (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 reliable sources. All the so-called references are GI Joe publications. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of independent sources. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. Doesn't meet the sourcing standards to pass WP:SIGCOV. Someone can always make the case for a redirect, or just create one after the AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are no reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this fictional character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable fictional character. The current article is nothing but extensive plot summaries sourced only to issues of comic books. Searches are not turning up any significant coverage in reliable sources, making this a failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Peel District School Board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Boulevard Public 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)

Redirect to Peel District School Board. Elementary school with no indication of notability. Sources are all local routine coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peel District School Board All routine outside the mention about school attendance, which is in no way a defining characteristic for a K-5 school article. Nathannah • 📮 21:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. No non-routine coverage found. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect works well in a table or Wikidata item, no reason for an individual article. Also of note, there are probably notability issues with a lot of entries in Category:Peel District School Board. --hroest 17:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Communications (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. Sourced to PR announcements (fail WP:ORGIND) and "top X companies" type lists (not WP:SIGCOV per WP:ORGTRIV) ~ A412 ^talk! 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Philippines, Mexico, United States of America, and Arizona. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - agree with A412. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it reads like an ad and most sources seem to come from the company itself. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Self closing the nom per HEY and the new sources with SIGCOV found by Cielquiparle. The article can be salvaged from those and OR can be removed. Nomination withdrawn and closing. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moundball (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)

Unsourced and orphan for 16 years. Couldn't find any sources with SIGCOV denoting notability. Previous contested PROD. — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is original research lacking any sources whatsoever, let alone WP:SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete, there are zero sources that cover, describe, or mention a betting game called “moundball”. Fails WP:V.

Pretty much all the info in this article is unsourced original research

Edit: Keep per Cielquiparle. Did not see those sources, sorry. (Though some of the article is still unsourced, and likely contains some original research) ApexParagon (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Started adding sources starting with newspaper articles but there is more to follow. It is definitely a thing, a spectator sport in American baseball. (But yes, the article is way too long and will require a bunch of cleanup.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added five sources to the article now and revised the lead paragraph. There is still more work to be done and I'm quite certain there are more sources in books and magazines. But some of the best examples to date include two pages explaining Moundball in this 1998 book by a sports cartoonist; a paragraph in the 2001 book Fields of Dreams: A Guide to Visiting and Enjoying All 30 Major League Ballparks; this 1997 article in The Galveston Daily News, "The art of moundball is no place for silly games and politics". Sometimes, depending on the topic, you really can't rely on a quick Google search to determine whether or not a topic is notable. Request reconsideration by nominator and other editors in this discussion, but especially Cbl62. Cheers. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did not catch those book sources, sorry about that.

The article likely still contains original research (over 80% of it is still unsourced), but 5 sources is enough for me to change my vote to Keep. ApexParagon (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ApexParagon. Agree. I would normally just go ahead and remove the unsourced sections but I'm finding a lot of the points turn out to be verifiable, so just want to take a bit of extra time to go through the text and understand it. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites (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:NTRUMP. The sources in the article and the sources that i can find are all centered around when the threats were issued and do not support any long lasting impact. There's nothing in this article's contents either that justifies it existing and not just being deleted and having its contents merged in other us-iran diplomacy articles. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Iran, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." Politicians and elected officials make threats all the time - but it does not belong on Wikipedia unless it actually occurs.— Maile (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Reactions to the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Seemingly no lasting coverage, and part of this wider topic. -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC

• Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Another one of those "things" by Trump. Unlikely to have lasting coverage nor continued coverage. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Trump says a hundred unhinged things a day that he never follows through on. Nothing happened here. Move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not more than a mention of Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration would be needed. Shankargb (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TRUMPCRUFT. A perfect example of such. Conyo14 (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wish there was a "you supported him, you knew, you were warned, you agreed with my assessment of his status, but you voted for him anyway because eggs" option. Bearian (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:TDS Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Bali gubernatorial election (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)

Declined PROD with the reasoning that it has been scheduled for 2029. Does not show significant coverage and is WP:TOOSOON Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting @Everywiki as an article creator Indonesianinfo2 (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting please see notice, now. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 17:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable event that is TOOSOON, no coverage and any content about the current position holder is CRYSTALBALL speculation assuming they are running, so that part could be challenged as un-encyclopedic and not verfiied, and then we're left with an empty article describing the date about something happening in the future, which always fails TOOSOON. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and Too soon for create this article where it is not yet certain whether the candidate will advance in the election (WP:V). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 02:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KryukovRM (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 evidence of notability, WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Paradoctor (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Article says itself that "no major media outlets have profiled KryukovRM as of yet". -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article created by fan; subject has no notability. This would have been a suitable nomination for PROD. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:TNT. It's really as if the creator had never read a single English Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the page's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Nekrasov (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)

Invalid dab page, with a single valid item. I sometimes other bios created, then Alexander Nekrasov (disambiguation) may come in. --Altenmann >talk 16:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the footballer interwiki does not point to a footballer born in 1963, but one born in 1998. We also have that article, found at Aleksandr Nekrasov (footballer), but its notability looks very doubtful. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there really should be a speedy deletion category for this. Bearian (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Central Java gubernatorial election (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:TOOSOON, two opinion polls have been conducted and all potential candidates are WP:OR as far as i can tell Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:28, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No SIGCOV, TOOSOON.

  Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is very similar to Next Trinidad and Tobago general election, the election is not for another fourish years. There is not a notable reason to include this page this early. It would be like giving the 2038 U.S. election its own page. Agree with assessments that it is WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and Too soon for create this article where it is not yet certain whether the candidate will advance in the election (Fails WP:V). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 02:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's hard to define when something is too soon, but I know it when I see it. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Generally, its not good for us to carry articles for elections years in advance. It's often too soon and leads to some crystal-esque behavior.

-Samoht27 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Siliguri Municipal Corporation election (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)

Case of WP:TOOSOON, no coverage about the actual election Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree this is too soon and I can't find any reliable coverage about the election. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. B-Factor (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2027 West Bengal Municipal election (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:TOOSOON, nothing I can find covers this. Was previously moved to draft Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too soon and no reliable, significant coverage of the future election available. Good candidate for WP:PROD. Not sure why there would be a section about voter turnout in an election that is 2 years away. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. @Yoblyblob I think these types of pages are good candidates for WP:PROD or WP:MULTIAFD so AfD doesn't get too cluttered.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anonrfjwhuikdzz I will tag these with PROD in the future Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. B-Factor (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 West Bengal Panchayat elections (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:TOOSOON, no sources seem to focus on the election specifically. Could be re-created once election gets coverage later on Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not only too soon, but "it's" typos are too many to fix. Bearian (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Mon Dieu (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. The only coverage I could find which was not a passing mention was in blogs, which clearly aren't reliable. Golem08 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. Golem08 (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This was the only RS I could find [3], this person is only briefly mentioned. That's about all there is. What's in the article now aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I won't vote, because she's friends of friends (and possibly a relative who is involved with her scene), but the sourcing doesn't seem significant. Bearian (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE and the original author may be connected to the subject judging by the fact the only contributions from their account were creating this article and adding to a related article : Speakeasy Dollhouse. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjaret Daghet (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 previous version of this article was deleted by PROD, and a version of this article was moved to the draft space with a statement for publishing, so here we are. No evidence of notability for bands or WP:SIRS in my before. Article formatting shows use of AI and sources to otherwise RS in the article doesn't exist and show evidence of AI hallucination. Other sources don't even refer to the band at all or are just social media. Fails GNG or NBAND. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Syria. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I've tried cleaning this up to make it easier to evaluate, but what remains doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Numerous dead links in the refs. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see you've tagged the first reference with {{dead link}} but I'll note that the url https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/documentaries/2017/10/syrias-heavy-metal-exiles-171015100140432.html suggests it was published in 2017 but the wayback machine says it was only crawled once in April of this year and even then it was a 404 page as it is now. A search of "Syria's heavy metal exiles" returns no hits from any Al Jazeera piece that I can find, and I am even having a tough time verifying that /programmes/documentaries/ is a url structure that they've ever used (even presently, they use the American spelling, see [4], "/program/"). Seeing as @Iomrla published this citation on April 4 (the same date it was first crawled) hopefully they can share some further information with us. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I also can find no verification of coverage in Al Jazeera, which would help the band's case if it really happened. A targeted search of their Arabic name leads to kitchen retail sites ("Pressure Pot" or "Pressure Cooker" in translation), so a more precise search for various album titles and member names is required, but that mostly leads to their own social media pages and self-uploads. They do have some introductory feature articles at [5], [6] but they don't yet add up to the notability requirements here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we are not MySpace. Bearian (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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