Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 12	May 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Byel

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

Was tagged as a G5 but I was unable to convince myself that G5 applies. I'll let the prior declined speedies and PRODs in the history speak for themselves:

WP:PROMOTION created by a cross-wiki spam. Their draft was declined, and yet they created the article. They also created this article in several other (mostly small) WPs.

YouTube content creator with limited visibility! A paid promotion linked to an entry on Wikipedia in another language, also created by the same user, raises doubts about the nature of this content, possibly suggesting it's an advertisement. I believe that the page dedicated to a Brazilian actor and YouTuber does not meet notability standards due to a lack of appropriate sources. Of the 7 cited sources, IMDb is generally considered unreliable, and the mentioned films on the page are not widely recognized, making the article questionable in terms of relevance..

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Internet, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its related to pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos_a_verificadores/Caso/Isaías_José_Silva_Oliveira_Neto and/or pt:Wikipédia:Pedidos a verificadores/Caso/Brasilesports. Cross wiki spam. Augustresende (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biel_TVZ and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biel_TVZ_(2nd_nomination). Augustresende (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cross-wiki spam. Subject appears notable looking at the Brazilian press links but in one of the few cases where I advocate “Ignore all rules”, we should delete this and block the user if not already blocked. Also, the specific IMDb and YouTube links should be blacklisted, preferably on Meta since this is a cross-wiki problem. There’s a potential for collateral damage from getting the Regex wrong so the blacklisting should be done by a blacklist-savvy admin. I’ll note that spamming small wikis is a particular problem since they have limited defenses. (I’m a former Meta admin with previous spam cleanup experience - that’s why I have an edit history on 180+ WMF projects). The article should be salted, too. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and support everything else A. B. said, the cross wiki spam of it all is troubling. Moritoriko (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Basic. COI issues and promotion signify not notable imo. Agree with comments on wiki spam. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler Park Academy

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

ROTM article without any WP:RS and nothing turned up on WP:BEFORE except routine coverage of their football team hroest 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. hroest 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think there is some history that could make the article more interesting, and perhaps some content can be found that would justify an assertion of notability. This [archive-url https://web.archive.org/web/20110710030837/http://chandlerparkacademy.net/about-us/history.html] has some clues.--Kerbyki (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I see here is an extremely short, promotional blurb from the schools website, unfortunately I did not see any WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that cover the history of the school as required per WP:NSCHOOL. --hroest 14:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I added a source from the The Michigan Chronicle that was not all that hard to find. I just inserted a sentence and added the source. But this school looks very notable, and it shouldn't take much effort to expand this article, complete with sources. — Maile (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is a single article that is a puff piece for a corporate donation to the school and contains hardly any information about the school itself, the best information you could extract from that article is that the donation happened, nothing more. I still dont see WP:THREE reliable independent sources with WP:SIGCOV. --hroest 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, better with the work that alice did. people wanting more info on this place, although small can. many times these you can put a lot into them, however there's a lot of them and its quite nice to have a collection of info on a place. there generaly not many infos on academy's. school that are used by hundred's or thousands I think are automatically notable even with less research JamesEMonroe (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

high schools are not automatically notable, see WP:NSCHOOL and here. --hroest 19:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fought hard for the past standard that all high schools were presumed notable, but I have since gone along with the consensus. Generally speaking, there needs to be three full stories in mainstream media for a school to be notable. These could be about their academic successes, notable alumni, winning a debate or glee club championship, or even scandals and crimes (the converage can be good, bad, or ugly). That places schools that haven't been open a long time at a distinct disadvantage. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to to Harper_Woods,_Michigan#Education. This does not look notable. I don't see this as enough for a stand alone article. Its main claim to notability is one alimni who played pro basketball, but the actual acadmy itself if not notable on its own. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Also, very ambiguous deletion nomination, what is "enough sources" if the sources are reliable? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Ellenby

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

Not enough sources to pass WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surprising amount of coverage of bridge in newspapers, [1], [2], [3], [4]. Seems to have been active in the 1950s and was still being talked about in newspaper columns in the 1990s. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tentatively, based upon having all the sources found added to the article. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of results (2000+) in Newspapers.com, from the 1940s to 2020. As well as more sources, there is more info that can be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:34, 20 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 23:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Mow

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

promo nonsense about a dude who has a job with lots of fancy wikilinked words, but no meaningful independent coverage of him or his companies - in any language. It's all PR and passing mentions, if Mow is even mentioned at all. BUNNYDICAE🐇 20:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, China, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs a cleanup, but has enough sources to meet WP:BIO. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sourcing is not so great. Several of the primary sources are Forbes, which is becoming deprecated, and a literal dictatorship that is proud of itself. The subject might be a successful business person, but his associates are literally tarnishing his reputation. It's unclear if this is a BLP violation. Is this promotional or a hit job? Is it virtue signaling or Vice signaling? Was someone paid to draft this, but did a passive aggressive move? Bearian (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dont think this meets notability. There are a few sources that are decent, but does not seem enough for stand alone article. Reads like a promotion or resume of the subject. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR article sourced to the subject’s own paid PR. Mccapra (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are PR and passing mentions of the subject. Patre23 (talk) 15:15, 14 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.

Frank T. Monahan

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Sources are three database entries and a brief obit from his college, none of which are significant independent coverage; nothing better turns up on search. — Moriwen (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and New Hampshire. — Moriwen (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep, appears to meet GNG, see e.g. this, this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merrimack Warriors men's basketball. Not seeing this as passing WP:Basic. Main claim is that the was a coach, but many coaches exist and they do not have their own page. Notability should be clear from the sources, but this is lacking. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is coverage lacking? What issue do you have with the presented sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Spaulding Sports Complex

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

Not a notable stadium. Search turns up a few articles which mention the stadium by name when discussing games there, but no significant coverage of the stadium itself. Other sources include a database entry and the club's own website. — Moriwen (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Jamaica. — Moriwen (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arnett Gardens F.C. as possible search term. Possibly notable. Giant Snowman 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the person it was named after Anthony_Spaulding#Minister_of_Housing. It is a multiple sport complex and is mentioned in the redirect. Not notable on its own. Can be salvaged with merge. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OceanMD

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

The company does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG based on the references given. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing via indpendent, reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources I saw were either press releases or WP:ORGTRIV. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per failing WP:NCORP. Sources are PR or primary to the subject. Can't find any WP:RS. Patre23 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a single reliable source. If they paid for this promotion, they were robbed. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are not enough RSes to justify inclusion. Every company does not warrant its own page, they must meet the WP:GNG which this does not. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wasn't able to find any trustworthy sources to support the content of this page. Additionally, it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. Sethi752 (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks reliable sources.looks like a promotional attempt. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seven (record producer)

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

No appearance of notability (only other sources I could find were primary source interviews) + NOTDB vio. PROD rejected due to number of incoming links, but I don't see why that answers the concerns I mentioned. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impressive work, assuming it's all true, but under WP:BLP, everything must be sourced - and almost nothing is. Producers are not automatically notable. We need significant coverage. Ping me if you can rescue this. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hieronymus Bosch (band)

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

One source is confirmed unreliable (see RSDISCOGS) and the other does have a bio and links to articles which mention the band in passing, but it's really not much and doesn't seem like enough. Couldn't find any other coverage of the band. No apparent redirect targets. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my search turned up more information on a Russian band of the same name than this one. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find anything other than this profile on music.nz, which might be a reliable source, but doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV. Rift (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is the same page already linked in the article which I mentioned in my nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sure is. Rift (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's rather difficult to perform a 100% thorough search because of this guy. I checked EBCSCO and archive.org. Found nothing. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 06:36, 19 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!} 19:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EruMuse Momoh

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The article is only referenced to primary sources, and all I could find elsewhere was a profile from [[5]], but student magazines are generally not considered as being independent. Let'srun (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 15 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. After two relistings, I don't see a clear consensus for any particular outcome just two sides presenting their arguments. Any other closure would reflect my opinion which could be argued at DRV to be a supervote. I suggest returning to AFD in a year or so for another attempt at arriving at a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allsebrook

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

Fails as per WP:NSPORTS. While he has appeared more than 80 times for a club at a professional level, and it is backed by two notable sources, there is simply nothing else that would suggest that this player is 'relevant' enough for an article. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And where did you look for sources for this 1910s footballer? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator makes the keep case themselves. This person "played for a club at a professional level" and the article is "backed by two notable sources". What more do you want, especially as this player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider this a bad faith nomination, the player won the Second division with Notts County in the 1913–14 Football League, I bet there are old newspaper archives that can help. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Probably mentioned in a few Notts history books. I also suspect he may have served in WW1, there is probably more to find. Govvy (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, in an era when the internet did not exist. WP:COMMONSENSE apples. Giant Snowman 01:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL was scrapped in 2022 and all Keeps using it as a reason to keep should be ignored by the closer. I did an actual search in the BNA archives and found no sigcov for Richard/Dick Allsebrook. Dougal18 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—"Two notable sources" is enough, especially given the WP:COMMONSENSE of the context. Anwegmann (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book is just stats so it isn't enough even if the Athletic Times article is sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources on internet. No question of notability. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. WikiMentor01 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS – Both sources don't give significant coverage of the player. The book is simply a compilation of player statistics while the Athletic News source is simply a listing of all the birth places, names, roles, and heights of the players. Per WP:SPORTCRIT, All sports biographies, including those of subjects meeting any criteria listed below, must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. As stated above, none of the sources cited in the article contain significant coverage of the player. Searches on the British Newspaper Archive didn’t turn up any significant coverage of the player in question. There are some results about a "Richard Allsebrook" being in two road accidents in 1930 and 1932 but I'm not certain whether or not this is the same "Richard Allsebrook". This article states that "Richard Allsebrook" was 32 years old at the time of the accident (1930) and this article states he was 37 years old at the time of the accident (1934). If those sources are to be believed, "Richard Allsebrook" was either born in 1897/1898 and not in 1892 like the article states. So either these sources are talking about a different "Richard Allsebrook" or they’re all referring to the same person and we simply have contradictory information about his birth date. Lastly, WP:NFOOTY, a WikiProject advice page, clearly states that The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with. Per the above, WP:NSPORTS is not met. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nearly 100 appearances for one of the most pre-eminent teams in English football, player pre-dates the internet age by many decades? per WP:NEXIST offline sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: English newspapers are extensively digitized at TNA and the British Newspaper Archive. Keep !voters can be expected to show sources for this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the other voters I usally vote to delete these Stubs but it seems this player did more then play a dozen games with out doing something significant and the nominater himself says there are 2 reliable sources already Scooby453w (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
They're both reliable sources that don't provide significant coverage of the player. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clealy has offline sources as shown above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless significant coverage in a reliable source is found. In which case, please ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 10:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there are some strong, reasonable appeals to WP:NEXIST, detailed analysis of sources shows a lack of SIGCOV. Is there a possible target for merging or redirect? Otherwise, it would appear NSPORTS is not satisfied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this from 1934, 15 years after his career at Notts County ended, that mentioned him playing cricket: "It is noteworthy that Richard Allsebrook, the old Notts County footballer, headed the batting for the Thursday XI, having an average of 39.6 runs for 13 innings." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the information is something that could be added into the article, the piece of coverage is still not significant coverage of him. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. This currently doesn't meet SPORTSCRIT, let alone the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 06:35, 20 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!} 19:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md Amiruzzaman

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

This autobiography doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Assistant profs aren't presumed notable so it would need to meet GNG or another SNG, and it doesn't seem to. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the recency of his PhD and his sparse citation record [6] (in machine learning, a very high citation field) argue against any pass of WP:PROF. Perpetual students can become through WP:GNG instead, through independent coverage of their perpetual student status, but I don't see any sign of notability this way either. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Korea, Georgia (U.S. state), Ohio, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete autobiography with no SIGCOV in the article provided. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - autobiographies are by definition WP:OR, which we have never published. We have almost never had an untenured professor pass the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will ignore his unusual educational history and the autobiographical and promo aspects. Assistant professor with a h-factor of 11, 411 total cites. Articles are in low profile journals. No awards. Far from meeting WP:NPROF, a very obvious case. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person does not currently meet WP:GNG as I do not see any RSes to bolster notability. Therefore, this should not be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography of a non-notable professor. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:52, 19 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.

I closed this as a Soft Delete as while there is a consensus to Delete this article, I think the arguments are weak and vague, lacking policy or specific information about sourcing. Even a review of poor sources that exist would have been helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Sánchez (Dominican actor)

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

Article lacks notability AndesExplorer (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, and Dominican Republic. AndesExplorer (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found no sources of value. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this per nom. No sources in the article and out there. Patre23 (talk) 15:22, 14 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 Wolf-Rayet stars. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WR 150

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

As rare as Wolf-Rayet stars are, this one fails WP:NASTRO: no significant individual coverage, not naked eye, not a pre-1850 discovery, and not in a catalogue of high historical importance. Lithopsian (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wolf-Rayet stars, where it is listed. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 11:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wolf-Rayet stars, where it is currently listed. There's a paragraph in Sander et al (2019)[7] (mostly about the distance) but it's not enough to constitute substantial coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 23:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a notable star. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wolf-Rayet stars. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:19, 19 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; retracted by nominator . (non-admin closure) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional diseases

AfDs for this article:

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

Blow it up and start over: this article is excessively long with incredibly poor sourcing. If this article is to survive, a proper criteria for inclusion must be established. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Get on the talk page and propose some criteria for inclusion, then we can edit. It's what we do. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator's rationale is something that can easily be resolved via talk page discussion, and not inherently a notability issue: Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. A brief search yields a bunch of hits on this topic: [8][9][10] to showcase a few, though more can be found just via searching in News, Books, and Scholar. The topic is clearly notable, the article just needs work, which can be handled via regular editing. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:52, 13 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!} 20:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anime with Alvin episodes

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

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

Two episode lists for YouTube cooking shows, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NWEB. We don't even have articles about the series, just one about the overall YouTube channel that they're distributed on -- and each of these is referenced to a single news article each to verify that the shows exist, while otherwise referencing the actual content of the lists (i.e. the episode titles, airdates and YouTube view counts) to their own primary source presences on YouTube or the host's own self-published website rather than reliable third-party sourcing.
So if the shows could be properly verified as having enough reliable source coverage to earn their own standalone articles as separate topics from the overall channel, then we could include the episode lists in the show articles -- but we don't need standalone episode lists if the shows don't even have articles at all, and we'd need to see a lot more than just one reliable source each to justify articles about the shows. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Internet, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither show is inherently notable given the lack of reliable independent sources for the shows themselves. There is little chance of individual episodes, or even the entire group of episodes, could also be notable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Instead of trying to delete it, help contribute to the article. Thats the point of Wikipedia. Bluehawkking (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no extant sourcing to make this a stronger article. Almost all coverage is dedicated to the main series or the chef himself. Moritoriko (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then frickin delete then, dude. Bluehawkking (talk) 23:05, 19 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!} 20:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare Excellence Canada

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

Article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing WP:NORG. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on third-party coverage about them and their activities in real media -- but this is referenced entirely to the organization's own self-published content about itself, with absolutely no third-party sourcing shown at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this organization from having to be the subject of proper GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, a company page sourced entirely to its own website and LinkedIn page constitutes original research, which we have never published, and a basic distortion of what we are - and that's not a social media platform. In 2025, everyone knows that. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are some press releases by the Canadian Medical Association but not much else in terms of SIGCOV. --hroest 12:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources on the page are self-referential, not every organization in the world warrants its own page, it must be notable enough to justify inclusion under the current framework. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination (and per Bearian). JSFarman (talk) 20:19, 16 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!} 20:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Industries

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

Article about a tech company, not reliably sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on third-party coverage about them and their activities in real media -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources, such as the company's own press releases and directory entries and the self-published websites of non-media organizations with direct business relationships with this company, none of which are support for notability. What little there is for reliable coverage comes almost entirely from limited-circulation tech industry trade publications rather than general market media, except for a single article in an alt-weekly which isn't enough to vault the company over GNG all by itself.
It also warrants note that the creator moved it into articlespace themselves without a proper WP:AFC review, even though their edit history suggests a possible (but not certain) conflict of interest (i.e. their very first edit was to post a Requested Articles request for an article about this very company, before immediately proceeding to draft and move it themselves a week later.)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this company from having to be the subject of proper GNG-worthy coverage in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete while the article has issues with WP:PROMO and may need a substantial rewrite, I do see some SIGCOV: here and here and they did seem to have won some sort of award/recognition: [11]. Overall the WP:THREE best sources are not that impressive and given the state of the current article I think deletion is the best way to go unless someone substantially improves the article. --hroest 21:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - another corporate wreck of a page strangled by promotional material, press releases from "live wire" services, other unreliable sources, and trivial claims. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO. It's a straightforward delete. Charlie (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. JSFarman (talk) 20:30, 16 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.

Maryam Matar

AfDs for this article:

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The subject does not meet notability criteria for academics nor for government figures. The subject's most-senior position is having been an Undersecretary in the UAE Ministry of Health and having been involved in various UAE government agencies. All the coverage of the subject are puff pieces by outlets that are not independent of the UAE government and seek to promote the UAE government's health care system. There is no RS coverage of the subject. Thenightaway (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with broad coverage in the news. Some of what I said in the 2022 discussion is still relevant:

(from 2022) The best sources are the two-page article in Emirates Woman from 2020[12] and The Arab Weekly.[13] Her work on genetic diseases has been covered in Gulf News,[14] the article by Sarah Townsend in The National (Abu Dhabi), and the article by Asma Ali Zain in The Khaleej Times.

In addition I have added a 2023 news article from the Gulf News (cited in the article, title From grit to glory: One woman’s mission to save lives and hearts) and other stories as an indication of on-going news coverage. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are propaganda outlets for the UAE government writing puff pieces for one of its government employees and for the UAE health care system. Thenightaway (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unfortunately, there is a lack of freedom of press in the country and all local media is government owned. This is a massive problem with most articles under the project as things that would 100% be notable have their notability questioned due to the reliability of the sources. Yeah, Emirati newspapers aren't the best for their coverage and have questionable bias and puffery - however, this particular person does have extensive coverage by Emirati newspapers AND publications from outside. The Arab Weekly, Cambridge University Press, this book, and Trade Arabia. Not to mention, she's won and been nominated for a few awards. jolielover♥talk 15:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Either I get permission to stubify this page, or we delete it as WP:TNT. Underneath the wreckage of self-promotion and nonsense appears to be a notable person. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG; deletion is not cleanup. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FCX file compression

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked very hard for references and found none. Ping me if someone finds something. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've drawn a blank re: independent sources as well. (Searched Google Books and Scholar.) Preimage (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks RSes to support inclusion. If there were sources demonstrating notability, that would be a different story but everyone seems to be having a hard time finding sources to justify inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 15 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Barbosa

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

According to the sources provided, he played briefly in the 3rd tier of Portugal and the 2nd tier of Serbia, which is far from indicative of a notable career. I have revived the Diario de Noticias source and it's only a very brief article about a hat-trick. My own searches yielded nothing better than RTP Madeira, which is also insignificant. Given the low level that he played at and my own WP:BEFORE, I can't see him passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks RSes and WP:SIGCOV. This is probably just a case of WP:TOOSOON assuming this person ends up having a fruitful sports career. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads (book series)

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

Article that only cites its own books, and searching it on Google only gives me order listings of the books, and the independent sources I do find are dubious at best. The entire article is just a plot summary and would need substantial cleanup to be a good-ish article. Was PRODded really recently but was rejected because merging is supposedly a better option. I put it on AfD to see whether this really should be merged. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 18:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of those series articles with weakly notable individual books. The norm is to just have a series article covering the three books, so I think we should keep it. As for the three books, here are the sources I've found: Spirit Gate: (Publishers Weekly: Gale A150473729, Library Journal: Gale A153360347, Kliatt: Gale A179159868), Shadow Gate: (Publishers Weekly: Gale A174596020, Library Journal: Gale A178257855) and Traitors' Gate: (Library Journal: Gale A203029144). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ARandomName123. The plot sections need to be slimmed down significantly, but the books in the series have very weak passes of WP:NBOOK. I agree that series articles are a good option in cases where the books in a series are just barely notable. MCE89 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep better to merge it to the series. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with the assessments above. This seems to be just barely notable enough to justify inclusion. I would certainly like to see more sources added to further bolster inclusion RE notability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Reads like a fan page. If this article is retained, I would suggest all unreferenced material apart from brief plot summaries is deleted, which would be most of the article. Blackballnz (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article being bad is not itself a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ARandomName123. Deleting is not clean-up. Article can be edited and reduced to a stub if necessary but deletion is neither necessary or beneficial to the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:34, 20 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

João Caminata

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

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. I found a loan announcement in Record and a transfer announcement in RTP Madeira but both of these are far from significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Likewise found nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient RSes to justify inclusion at the moment. If more sources are discovered, please let me know but at the moment, this page should not stay up due to failing WP:GNG Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:22, 15 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adib Azahari

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player—which is fitting, given that he doesn't seem to have played a single match in nine years. Given the length of his name, though, I am certainly open to the idea that meaningful sources do exist, but I can't find any using any of the combinations I can figure. Anwegmann (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is supposed to be for people who did something of note. He has done nothing. He has played 57 minutes continentally, but he is just does not have a football career. All sources are WP:PRIMARY and WP:PASSING. Geschichte (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has been in the Lion City Sailors and national team squad. He has won trophies, and have played for Lion City Sailors. One example is today in the Singapore Premier League match against Balestier Khalsa. EricChouu (talk)

That means nothing to this discussion. Anwegmann (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient RS coverage to justify inclusion RE notability. The fact that he has only played 57 minutes total further lends credence to the notion that this is WP:TOOSOON at best. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:23, 15 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Obvious

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a recording engineer and producer, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
As always, people are not automatically notable enough to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about them in reliable third-party sources independent of themselves, but this is completely unreferenced -- and while perusing the edit history reveals that it's had a couple of references in the past, they weren't solid or GNG-worthy ones: there was one Q&A interview in which he was talking about himself in the first person and one glancing namecheck of his existence in a deadlinked source that wasn't about him, and nothing else besides those at any point, so even if they were readded now that still wouldn't be enough.
Further, the most frequent editor of this article has been a user named "Ron Obvious V", a clear conflict of interest, and he's gone with a significantly self-promotional and résumé-like tone rather than a neutral one.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better sourcing than this article has ever contained. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New Zealand, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found a very small number of passing mentions of Obvious in local news. I won't discount the possibility that I'm missing some more thorough mentions but based on what I have seen he's not meeting WP:GNG. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:PROMO/WP:SELFPROMO. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. I dont see any WP:SIGCOV here. --hroest 21:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this page is emblematic of everything wrong with autobiographies. It's mostly original research, which we have never published. It's biased in favor of the subject. It's written in a style that is like Facebook or other social media that we are not. Finally, the sourcing is terrible. AllMusic is the closest to a real source, but we generally require three in depth sources, not one literally one line. Finally, when powerful individuals are trying to crush our financial viability, this self dealing is unhelpful to keeping our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this article reads as a WP:PROMO and that it lacks WP:SIGCOV and just WP:GNG more generally. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:24, 15 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.

Executive Order on Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients

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

WP:NTRUMP. This is a direction to reduce prescription drug prices, which to me may only have an effect on pricing but not widespread medical field changes. Just because something is a direction to adjust prices to me doesn’t make it notable long-term. Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 15:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Medicine, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every executive order needs a standalone article, even when covered in the news immediately after issuance. Prescription drug prices in the United States#History could be a place for a few sentences on this. Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump per nom. मल्ल (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Hot off the presses, and as मल्ल notes, there are more than a few pages on recent EOs, many with less coverage. Nothing is lost in draftifying this article with the intent of reevaluating in the near future when the effects thereof are more clear. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the fact that other EO articles have less coverage be an argument for keeping? Or are you saying those should go though AfD as well? Czarking0 (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think a few could be worth a review. I'm of the belief that a lot of articles get rushed against the guidance of NOTNEWS. In the case of a very new piece of legislation of dubious impact, we can neither assume SUSTAINED nor larger notability will be met. Ideally, these articles are kept in the draft phase until a determination can be made either way. The Way I see it, this EO isn't clearly article material yet, but far from worth deleting outright. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to that, EOs aren't legislation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NTRUMP. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article, and so far this seems just standard and routine minor politics. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:NTRUMP this is an essay and should not be used for determining consensus on AfD which should be based on guidelines. If it was you'd do well to note that the essay is about things Trump merely says rather than executive orders of the United States. Czarking0 (talk) 03:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a huge deal. Democrats, especially Bernie Sanders, have been promising something like this for decades. This is going to be huge, and there will be so many news articles about it, and it will effect not just every person in the U.S., but also every developed country in the entire world. This is a big, big deal. Very notable. R5Y93mdf (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@R5Y93mdf: Notability is not based on what you think about it. It's based on if it (quoting WP:N) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And per the section on sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED), Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. Please review the guidelines and provide a basis within the guidelines to justify your keep reply, or else it may be discounted/ignored per WP:NOTAVOTE. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, or an extremely week keep. Hard to say whether this is a big deal or Trump cruft. Draftifying is probably better than waiting until notability is more clear. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NTRUMP and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify which part of WP:NOTNEWS you think is relevant here? To me, this is clearly not OR, not Routine coverage, Who's Who or gossip. As for WP:NTRUMP this is an essay and should not be used for determining consensus on AfD which should be based on guidelines Czarking0 (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the executive order itself, as a subject, is unlikely to have any lasting notability. Anything that comes from it/partially because of it should be covered at an article about the outrageous state of prescription drug costs in the US. At the moment, I don't think this executive order even warrants a mention (it amounts to asking for help), but if it does in future, we can add mention of it then. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhat weakish, but still. The EO does not have any real teeth and is unlikely to have any substantive effect. However, it concerns a major policy topic in the U.S. of prescription drug prices, and there is bound to be continued discussion, and continued coverage, of why the EO didn't work. So at the very least one can reasonably confidently predict that there will be continued coverage of the EO itself. Nsk92 (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a big deal. Whether or not it faces legal challenges, the *potential* impact to prices in a country racked with healthcare problems high enough to cause notable social tension, and the expected 1 trillion dollar cost, make this a noteworthy issue. I would opine that it is at least as worthy as the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which has an article. 85.131.184.138 (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Big deal" can already be explained within Prescription drug prices in the United States. Does this executive order have enough standalone notability outside of the context of that article? I think not. Cambalachero (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article does not cover this event whatsoever. At least add it to that article before claiming it circumvents the need for this article. You know full well this event will be censored there also. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why, User:int21h do you claim that this would be censored in Prescription drug prices in the United States - when it is in that article now, with no attempts to remove it? Perhaps you could strike your unfounded claim, to simplify the discussion? Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll summarize what I said on the talkpage of the article here. There is no possible way yet to say that this will have the WP:SUSTAINED coverage required for notability, and ultimately it's a big nothingburger - a directive to agencies to request companies apply a most-favored nation policy. In other words, it's a "pretty pretty please" that has zero enforcement mechanism, and any enforcement mechanism will almost certainly be ruled illegal for at least many cases (such as domestic company selling drugs produced domestically).
In summary, this is textbook WP:TRUMPCRUFT, and should not be allowed in articlespace. I highly, highly doubt that this will ever reach the level of notability needed for a standalone article. But if editors truly do think it may potentially be viable in the future, I would not be opposed to draftifying/userfying upon request. But the problem with that is that it could then be changed a bit, even when its notability has not changed, and moved back into mainspace, after which yet another AfD would be necessary to get the TRUMPCRUFT out of mainspace. Hence why I prefer just deleting it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus should be built around guidelines not essays. Also this essay calls out articles on things Trump says. This is not something that Trump merely said but an EO of the United States. Czarking0 (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you missed it, but I linked directly to the part of the notability policy that applies. There are hundreds of executive orders, many of which get brief bursts of news coverage until the news/public realizes that they were just cruft that did literally nothing (or are overturned by courts). Brief bursts of news coverage do not make notability. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep the sustained is a good question here. I addressed that below I was too focused on the "In summary" in my previous comment. My bad Czarking0 (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And my crystal ball is unfortunately broken, so I can't tell you whether there will be sustained coverage or not. My guess (which is simply a guess) is that there likely will not be. To your comment below, while the news cycle is much faster than it was a century ago, it's still not uncommon to see some news sources "lag" behind others, either because they're spending more time gathering background, or trying to get a specific interview, or just because they were too busy to post something about it. I would not consider it sustained coverage until it is talked about in ideally non-news sources, but potentially significant investigative features, months from now. That would be a shoe in for sustained coverage. But it's not going to be within the week of the order coming out. And probably not even a month of it coming out. Hence why I still support deletion, with the option for you (or another person) to request it be draftified/userfied with the understanding you will not move it back to mainspace unilaterally like you did the first time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:N is not about the legality or impact of an article's subject. Notability is determined by sources. The existing sources demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG and googling shows that there are many additional RS. The only real question is if coverage will be sustained which it is obviously too early to tell. That the article discusses the first MFN pricing schema and the sources discuss the first EO on MFN pricing. These sources show that the first EO on MFN received sustained coverage. I expect that this one will as well. If consensus goes against keep please move into my user space as I will use this text for some of the other articles I work on. Czarking0 (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As progress towards sustained I'll note that there are now 3 sources from May 12 and 3 from May 13. Czarking0 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 14th now included as well Czarking0 (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - especially local ones - don't prove that a stand-alone article is necessary. I see no reason any bespoke content here can't be included in Prescription drug prices in the United States. Nfitz (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Necessary" is not a guideline by which articles are deleted. These sources show that the matter is notable, a guideline by which articles are kept.Czarking0 (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is giving undue focus to the minutiae of government, and to Executive Orders over the actual facts on the ground. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This May 19 source which I added to the article also mentions EO 14273 over a month after its publication. There are significant similarities between that one and this one which I think helps establish that these Pharma price EO's are generally notable. Czarking0 (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added two sources from May 20 concerning the new updates from HHS. These were again vague. I strongly suspect there will be additional coverage as the administration attempts to actually use this EO Czarking0 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump. Just more run-of-the-mill Trumpcruft. Aydo h8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Right now, it's just news and a dream. There's not yet any coverage about real effects. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is not about future impact, it’s about present reliable, significant coverage. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keept receiving international coverage in reliable sources example, it already affects the stock market and in depth analyses are published. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I added one of these to the article. I was unable to access the others Czarking0 (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:Notability guidelines. WP:NTRUMP is a WP:ESSAY and not a policy, and as such this discussion should be closed as improperly proposed. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Notability guideline says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest" and "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." In other words: it takes a bit more than just a pair of days' woth of news coverage to have notability. NTRUMP simply expands upon the idea. Cambalachero (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are excuses because not a single Democrat did this. This executive order is talked about every day, not just because the Democratic Party lied about wanting to do it, and not just because it's Trump, but because it's a notable EO on a notable subject. Any coverage would necessarily be recent because this proposal was made shortly after the EO was created. Pretty dumb argument to say "short-term interest" on a recent event. Since your argument is based on policy not in this proposal (which is not based on any policy), you should be able to propose it separately so we can have a proper discussion on it. The admin corps should do the obvious thing and close this thinly-veiled partisan attempt at censoring inconvenient events. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion about the President's actions. One that you're entitled to, I'm sure, but it doesn't really say much about this proposal except that you don't like it. (The proposal clearly is based on a policy; it's based on WP:N.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that getting into details about particular local political parties, User:int21h, makes it clear why you support the keeping of this article. I really don't understand much of what you are saying. Can you explain why the article should be kept in neutral non-political language. Please do it in a way such so that readers who are not aware of what your local political parties are. 03:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - why would this simply not be mentioned in an existing article - if at all. And how does the page title pass WP:COMMONNAME? Nfitz (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's now been renamed to Executive Order 14297 (by User:Ikhouvanjou14) which may resolve at least your naming concern. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's good to see the weird name gone. But I'm still concerned that this particular direction notable enough or has enough content to have a stand-alone article, rather than just being included in another article, such as Prescription drug prices in the United States. A third of this short article is giving the background that is unnecessary if this content was included elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the number had not come out yet when I made the article. It takes the federal register several days to officially number them. Czarking0 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTRUMP and all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to Prescription_drug_prices_in_the_United_States#History per Reywas92 and shrink to about one paragraph. Trump's INTENTIONS do not have lasting importance unless they get implemented. This expresses his INTENTION not (yet) a real accomplishment, and so should receive WP:DUE coverage based on that. If/when this does actually happen, then more can be added to that section, but the Executive Order itself won't do everything, he will need action from Congress, as most sources have noted. For comparison, we don't have articles on every bill PASSED by Congress (only the more important) ones, and we practically never have (I've seen some but most should be deleted) articles on pending or introduced bills.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 06:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to be an argument based on the guidelines to me? Articles are not kept or deleted based on the importance but based on their notability. Unless you are equating the two? I fail to see how the sources here do not support notability under WP:GNG Czarking0 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the arguments that this is not everything about Trump, consider that the predictions are based upon conjecture , and the news coverage dried up in 47 hours. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bearian thanks for the contribution. I just added a source from a week after the publication in case that changes your vote Czarking0 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. EO imposes full-blown socialism on Big Pharma prices. No wonder it has gotten tons of press. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an argument based on policies, not on your personal opinions about the topic. Cambalachero (talk) 14:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim Jara

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

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

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

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

New politician, article fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Dr. Tasnim Jara is widely covered in independent, reliable sources, including international outlets such as BBC, ITV, Financial Times, France 24, and The Guardian, and Bangladeshi national dailies like The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune, and The Business Standard.

She has over 12 million followers as a health content creator — the most for any Bangla-speaking medical communicator worldwide. She was officially recognized as a Vaccine Luminary by the UK government and has contributed to peer-reviewed journals such as JACC and Frontiers in Global Women’s Health.

She is also a senior NHS doctor, a political leader in Bangladesh's National Citizen Party.

The article is well-cited, and the subject clearly passes the notability threshold under both media and scholarly criteria. 103.57.120.14 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the article has been significantly expanded and improved since nomination. The author should consider removing the ref bombs. Please present three independent sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. The number of followers do not make someone notable automatically.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News1, News2, News3 News4 Tasnim Jara is a 21st century female politician and this Wikipedia article can be published. I have given 4 independent national level news articles in native language. Here is the name of her political party and the previous mention that she is a popular person of Bangladesh as a doctor. I think it can be kept. Dv24mail (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article meets the criteria set by WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. There are at least three independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject:

The Daily Star – An article titled "Delivering reliable healthcare information in Bangla" discusses Dr. Jara's efforts in combating health misinformation and her role in co-founding Shohay Health, a platform aimed at providing accessible health information in Bangla.
ITV News (UK) – A national television segment focuses on her work addressing vaccine hesitancy.
France 24 – Features a detailed interview covering her political involvement and public engagement.

The article has been significantly improved and contains verifiable, policy-aligned sources. Further refinement can continue, but it meets inclusion standards. RiverQuill29 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tasnim Jara Meet the criteria of WP:NPOL. This article is about a 21st-century Bangladeshi female politician. She has received numerous news coverage in her native language and is already well-known in Bangladesh as a physician in addition to her political credentials. Dv24mail (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a possibility that the article is very near to notability, but use of excessive source made it impossible to determine that. There are also several issues in the article. I can't vote unless the article is reorganized and restructured with reducing unnecessary sources. Mehedi Abedin 20:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I’ve now reduced the sources significantly and restructured the article. It should be much easier to assess notability now. Happy to take further suggestions. RiverQuill29 (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to address WP:CITEKILL and notability issues. Subject may be notable but references put forward don't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. Note interviews don't count towards GNG. Ideally references in Bangali (or any non-English reference) have the title translated into English. For this subject, if notability is NPOL, what political office was subject elected to? Not clear from article. Nnev66 (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is not an elected representative, but he has received national news coverage as a politician. He is the head of the central committee of a new political party formed in the 21st century. Dv24mail (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while party leaders are "politicians" in ordinary connotation, they do not automatically pass our standards. In the past seven months, we have deleted dozens of articles about political leaders and candidates. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is not an elected representative, but he has received national news coverage as a politician. He is the head of the central committee of a new political party formed in the 21st century. Dv24mail (talk) 03:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If subject was not elected to political office, articles almost always fail NPOL. If there’s significant coverage in independent reliable sources it could meet GNG, but as I noted above, it’s not clear that it does. Nnev66 (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She did not get a party position after being elected, she got the responsibility while the position was established. She got independent news coverage as a political figure. As news coverage, she met the WP:GNG criteria. However, it can be considered as the central leader of the newly formed political party that is currently the most discussed in Bangladesh. I repeat, she was very well known in Bangladesh as a physician before entering political life. She studied at Oxford and received a foreign award. Dv24mail (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Perhaps someone close to the person or the person themselves wrote it. When reading the article, it becomes clear that it was written for self-promotion. Somajyoti ✉ 16:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I think so too. It seems like someone close to wrote something that was added hastily to the article. Dv24mail (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per @Nnev66. The person is notable, thus can be edited & improved to meet WP:GNG. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm changing my vote to keep, the article has been improved very well to meet WP:GNG Ahammed Saad (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as an edge case (see sources I note in this paragraph), changing !vote from Draftify due to improvements to article and that it's not clear if any additional sources will emerge in the next six months. Nnev66 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC) ~~Comment~~ There has been a lot of improvement to the article since I voted. I'm now leaning towards a weak keep as I think the following references [15], [16], [17] (assuming Bangla Outlook is a reliable source) support notability via WP:BASIC. Nnev66 (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having reviewed the available sources this is just WP:TOOSOON. She very clearly does not pass NPOL and while there is coverage about her neither her health or political related coverage would be enough for an article. As written it is very promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 07:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : agree with SportingFlyer. Additionally, there are concerns regarding potential and possible use of multiple accounts to promote the subject. SRL1122 (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep Easy Pass WP:GNG 103.89.26.28 (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per Nnev66. WP:TOOSOON. Mehedi Abedin 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She's a very popular content creator in Bangladesh per above. Country sources and International sources has also covered her very well. Her current role in NCP is likely to lead more notability in the future. WinKyaw (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep – Maybe she will become popular in the near future ★Saadi ✉️ 12:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)★[reply]

@Saadi095 please read WP:CRYSTAL. Mehedi Abedin 20:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saadi, what do you mean by "Soft Keep"? Did you mean "Weak Keep"? In some very limited situations there is a closure called "Soft Delete" but there is no "Soft keep" that I've heard of.

We also don't Keep articles simply because someone might be notable in the future. Otherwise, we'd have articles on everyone on the planet including you and me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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!} 20:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Volk

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

This tennis player never won a title, played one Fed Cup doubles match which she lost, had a highest ranking of 505 (despite what it says in the lede - the infobox is correct). Fails GNG and the article is totally without sourcing except the usual external links database bits. I cannot find any SIGCOV about her. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Slovenia. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A09|(talk) 13:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pac-12 Conference football rivalry games

AfDs for this article:

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

Only two of the teams mentioned in the article are currently in the Pac-12. Would it make sense to have a List of Southwest Conference football rivalry games list article too? This list should have been merged with the main Pac-12 Conference article back when the conference had 12 members. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not seem great to have a list for a topic that can easily completely change, as we have seen Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of NCAA college football rivalry games would be a suitable redirect/merge target if that ends up being deemed appropriate. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the sourcing found in the original AFD. Changing the scope to include former Pac-12 teams is probably all that needs to be done here. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Esolo5002. Notability is not temporary and just because the Pac-12 barely exists as of now doesn't make its history non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and add/keep a section for the historic rivalries. We SHOULD have an article List of Southwest Conference football rivalry games. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:38, 19 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 Pope Adrian VI#Papacy. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinals created by Adrian VI

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

Contested PROD. It’s a one-item list. The page creator removed the PROD on the grounds that there are articles for all creations of cardinals and that they contain more information, but a one-item list isn’t needed, and the information can be put on the page about the cardinal himself. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: as the only pages that link to this page are List of creations of cardinals and Pope Adrian VI, I think anyone following the link is looking for information on Willem van Enckevoirt, the cardinal in question, so a redirect there would be better. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if there are articles for all creations of cardinals, then perhaps keep as a redirect for navigation and redirect to Pope Adrian VI. Jahaza (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pope Adrian VI#Papacy. Duplicative and unnecessary, one item is not a list even if other items in the set have lists. Reywas92^Talk 20:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pope Adrian VI#Papacy as an ATD. A one person list is not necessary. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is certainly the correct outcome here. Pope Adrian VI#Papacy looks like an adequate target. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:32, 20 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Samrat

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

References primarily rely on a single news article from Prabhat Khabar, with two additional sources offering limited coverage, potentially glorifying a criminal figure without enough critical analysis or broader context, which could conflict with Wiki NPOV policy. BharatGanguly (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Crime. BharatGanguly (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is also obviously written by AI. I'm leaning towards a deletion based on BLOWITUP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: [18] This is only a passing mention. Other's i can not find Significant and reliable. B-Factor (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This reads like an Indian version of Barabbas. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the AI creation and the paucity of sourcing present... very well could be notable but nothing here that can be salvaged. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Machine

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

Non-notable group; fails WP:BAND. Very little coverage of their work or any of the members. MidnightMayhem 14:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question. @MidnightMayhem: Did you conduct a WP:BEFORE search? Where did you look? Cielquiparle (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Leaning keep. Added some refs, expanded lede, started removing completely extraneous info. If anyone can get their hands on back issues of Melody Maker (May 16, 1992) and Kerrang! (1993–1994) please shout. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cielquiparle:
Melody Maker: 1992-05-16, 1993-12-25, 1993-08-14, 1992-02-29.

Kerang!: 1993-1994
-- GreenC 16:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @GreenC. What's frustrating is that Internet Archive has all the back issues of Kerrang! as PDFs through 1980s but not 1993–1994. The two hits you got are not the actual magazine issues. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I look at it glass half full: it's a small miracle they have any of this at all, for free that anyone can access, without even an account. They have at least 5 times as much digitized material as the Library of Congress, are easily the largest digital collection in the world including surpassing Google. -- GreenC 22:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC Oh for sure. It's awesome. I'm just genuinely trying to fix the article (now rather than kicking the can down the road). Nearly there. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I first conducted a general search through Google as recommended at the WP:BEFORE guidelines and found no notable news articles on the group. I then looked through reference databases including AllMusic and The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which again turned up no results. The group won no major awards and did not chart with any released work. I concluded that there were not enough sources and WP:SUSTAINED coverage to meet WP:BAND. I see you've found some articles that mention them, but I'm still not sure there's enough to establish notability. MidnightMayhem 06:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They made this chart. Melody Maker predates Rolling Stone was an important mag. -- GreenC 16:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for specifying @MidnightMayhem. Per WP:DILIGENCE, It is a good idea to explain the searches you performed in your nomination statement. It just helps everyone else understand where you searched, so that we understand your reasoning and also know where else to search. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. The article was in terrible shape when it was first nominated, but has been completely rewritten with citations throughout. Please see Meat Machine now. Strongest pieces of coverage about this 1990s British industrial metal band included the 1992 feature article "Slaughterhouse four" in Melody Maker, a major British weekly music magazine, accessed via the Internet Archive (which is a good place to look for this time period and genre). In addition, in February 1992, the band's single "Times Of Addiction" was ranked No. 7 in the Melody Maker Top 10 Solid Grooves chart. We generally prefer to find coverage in multiple sources (i.e., more than one publication), and in this case we have several pieces of coverage in Kerrang! magazine as well: This 2019 article in Kerrang!, "14 songs about the Manson family", has one paragraph on Meat Machine and its song "Charles Manson (Rise and Fall)" which was Kerrang! Single of the Week in 1993, with a YouTube link to the track. Although back issues of Kerrang! magazine are currently unavailable online (Internet Archive currently only has Issues 1 through 40), the "Further reading" section of the article suggests that the 24 July 1993 issue includes coverage of the Meat Machine being named "Single of the Week" (also per the 2019 online article); that the 28 August 1993 issue includes a Meat Machine concert review; that the 23 October 1993 issue includes an album review of Slug; and that the 29 January 1994 issue includes an interview with band members, most likely one of their final pieces of coverage before they broke up. There are also several other pieces of coverage now cited in the article, including recording reviews in various zines, and a 2014 article with three paragraphs about Meat Machine's original keyboardist, Ford [Shawcross], published in Disability Arts magazine. There are also mentions of Meat Machine in Dutch newspapers and Japanese websites (and offline books). All in all, this demonstrates enduring interest in Meat Machine both nationally and internationally, over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, largely due to the fact that their 12" single "Charles Manson (Rise and Fall)" is part of the oeuvre of songs about the Manson Family. Thanks to GreenC for the links to the Melody Maker archives. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (and WP:HEY). Article significantly improved after BEFORE-type work to find sources. Nice work, Cielquiparle. -- GreenC 18:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been substantially improved since nomination so that the references such as Melody Maker, Kerrang, and zines and books show a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus seems to be while this couple might have a tangential relationship to notable theater productions, there is no SIGCOV of them and their careers, just passing mentions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian and Dayna Lee

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

New biography about subjects which have lack of significant coverage in media or verifiable sources available (or cited). Article appears to be written like an advertisement and contains mostly unverified, apparently original content. TonySt (talk) 13:53, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source to the material, such as https://royalcourttheatre.com/giant-transfers-to-the-west-end/ Jessica.ldj (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it's reference on IMDB https://www.imdb.com/title/tt36776644/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cst_smThe%20Housewife,%20starring%20Naomi%20Watts%20and%20Luke%20Evans

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2229577/?ref_=ttfc_fcr_cr

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0497134/?ref_=ttfc_fcr_cr Jessica.ldj (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article sourced only to a primary source. Reads like a resume with no inline citations and many statements that are not supported by any sources. The imdb links given in another comment don't show notability either. I can't find anything that discusses this pair of individuals. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was another comment about their work https://deadline.com/2025/05/allen-white-patinkin-rossellini-zagar-painted-bride-1236381017/ Jessica.ldj (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Berklee also reference them as Two Berklee Alumni Win Tony Awards: https://www.berklee.edu/berklee-now/news/two-berklee-alumni-win-tony-awards Jessica.ldj (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articles do not even mention Brian or Dayna, these are not helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And all these publications referenced them as producers。

https://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/giant-royal-court-the-23777

https://theatreweekly.com/first-look-giant-at-the-royal-court-in-rehearsal

https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/jeremy-allen-white-mandy-patinkin-isabella-rossellini-set-for-jeremiah-zagar-s-the-painted-bride-as-charades-new-europe-wme-independent-board-sales-cannes-market/ar-AA1E3yrE

https://variety.com/2025/legit/reviews/giant-review-john-lithgow-west-end-1236390121/

https://www.whatsonstage.com/shows/london-theatre/west-end-theatre/giant_929894254/

https://exeuntnyc.com/reviews/review-here-there-are-blueberries-at-new-york-theatre-workshop/ Jessica.ldj (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all trivial or tangential mentions of the pair. They put on successful plays, yes, but we have no articles about the people themselves (the subjects of the article up for debate here). Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica, are there any articles about the Lees themselves, and what their functions actually were on their productions? Was it fundraising, did they do the legwork to select the writers, composers, directors, designers? What else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial coverage, not notable producers. Cinder painter (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
they are Tony Award winning producers. I think it can be considered notable.

https://www.tonyawards.com/winners/year/2018/category/revival-play/show/any/ Jessica.ldj (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. They were among about 25 producers of this revival of Angels in America, so I am just wondering what their role was. Indeed, it would be nice to find some significant coverage of them that discuss their actual roles in the shows for which they have been one of the producers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caveats. The subject (or, in this case, subjects) appear to be notable by having received a well-known and significant award or honor (in this case, at least one Tony Award). (The claims are unreferenced in the article, but this is evidence of one awarded to them personally and this is evidence of one that was awarded to their company). The article itself is desperately in need of clean up - Cinder painter made a good start by removing some of the most excessive spam; the remaining content that cannot be sourced should be removed, perhaps reducing the article to no more than a stub. However, these are editing tasks which do not require AfD. Dorsetonian (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reluctantly changing my analysis to Delete, because nothing has been added to the article, since we began to explain referencing to Jessica.ldj, which represents significant coverage in independent WP:Reliable sources about the subjects of the article. Yes, they are listed as producers among dozens of others in some noteworthy productions (and so shared awards with all the other producers), but there is no indication of what they specifically did for any of these productions. The reviews that Jessica.ldj recently added to the article merely report that the show was good -- they don't even mention the Lees or what they did for the show. I would be very happy if someone could add any indication of significant coverage *of the Lees* into the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:21, 15 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.

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Turkey, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Politics, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I clarified in the 2nd nomination. I do not think that the sources is adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 10:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Diversion

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an events organisation, and cannot find independent and significant coverage to add. I do not think it meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - also falls under WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moonshaft

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

There are no indications of notability. The sourcing consists entirely of primary sources and blogs, several of which have since been taken down. One of the sources appears to be a placeholder for a book written by a non-notable author. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and Geography. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability, lacking coverage WP:SIGCOV and contains a lot of original synthesis WP:NOR Ivey (talk - contribs) 19:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is packed with material that is unsourced, credulous, and non-notable. What sourcing there is, as presented by the nom, is at best suspect. All about a thing that does not actually exist. WP:NOT applies. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Czech version of the article does seem to contain book sources. Not sure if these books are reliable or relevant, though. ApexParagon (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Czech version has long passages of unsourced material. Do we have any editors who understand Czech (does enWiki have a Czech WikiProject?) and are willing to evaluate the suitability of those books/authors? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know one. Not very active lately on the en.wiki project, but worth a shot. @Psax: you might be able to help. VdSV9•♫ 18:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient coverage at this point to justify inclusion. If this changes, please keep me posted. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 11:51, 18 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 23:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RLDatix

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

This article was largely written by a self-declared COI editor. All the sources cited are press releases. WP:BEFORE does not turn up anything other than PR and directories. Maybe Rathfelder can find some meritorious sources, but I did not. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It needs editting, not deletion. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To what end? Why need sourcing here, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, England, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. A search in google news reveals PR type articles and routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is only PR items [19], buying another company, naming a CEO. I don't see sourcing we can use. Article sourcing now is tangential or primary items. None of which is helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Baynham

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

He fails GNG and has a lack of SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiply Group PJSC

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

The article really lacks the sources with reliable and significant beyond trade press, with much of the coverage focusing primarily on purchasing or other events. Linkusyr (talk) 11:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson Lee Flores

AfDs for this article:

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

Not much can be written about the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the available information is his role for taking over the Kamuning Bakery. No information on the works that made him awarded the Don Carlos Palanca Memorial Awards for Literature.

See article's state (diff) prior to significant addition by a conflict of interest user Pandesalforum Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For accountability, my last name is Flores, but I am not related to him. That said, I believe there is information out there about how he became an award-winning writer. I've also added info and sources on how he got 3 Palanca Awards.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author is covered by multiple reliable, independent sources, although I am assuming good faith about national publications that I have not read. The awards are verified and establish clear notability per WP:GNG. Archrogue (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Archrogue.
124.104.160.21 (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Evans (footballer)

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

Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV. Dougal18 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find either any signs of this footballer notability. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough yet to justify inclusion. If he has a fruitful career then this will just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. However, at this point, it does not meet WP:GNG Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The sources are mostly match reports, with none with in-depth coverage. Svartner (talk) 08:13, 20 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. Nomination withdrawn - unanimous keep. It's social, geographical and historical relevance added by voters which meets the nominator's withdrawal mention of time based relevance. (non-admin closure) HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yampukur Vrata

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

Effectively a single source. Unable to verify. Potentially notable with note tag. Seeking wider consensus. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 11:52, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Hinduism. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is all I could find on Google Scholar. It seems to be a RS, and the relevant section is short but is probably just barely SIGCOV in my view. I'm having trouble finding anything else though. There are about half a dozen mentions in English on Google Books, but none of the ones that I could access contained SIGCOV. The bnwiki article cites two encyclopedia sources, but I wasn't able to find a way to access either of them. Overall I think there's a good chance the subject is notable, but the sources are almost certainly not in English and may be difficult to verify. ~~Unless anyone is able to find better sources, I would probably suggest a selective merge to Vrata to at least maintain the article history.~~ MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with a keep now that the nomination has been withdrawn to avoid holding up a close. MCE89 (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Its not a worth a sausage. A company produced report. I couldn't find much on him. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, I’m a bit confused by what you mean. What company? And who is ‘him’? MCE89 (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm more confused. Sorry, its the wrong Afd. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think its notable as a time-honoured tradition, then Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: weak keep - agree with nom and can't verify non-english sources, but seems this is notable. Also see Senjuti Vrata - a similar ritual in same geographic area Asteramellus (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In Hinduism, Vrata holds great significance. There are many locally published books that shed light on these Vrata rituals. Somajyoti ✉ 16:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject appears to be a notable cultural tradition with historical and social relevance.SRL1122 (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayk Gyolchanyan

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

Not a notable person. Yousiphh (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Armenia, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Military, Russia, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:GARAGE. Mztourist (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally non-notable. Outside this wiki page, I have found nothing about this subject. Azuredivay (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. Rift (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Social Change Evolution and Transformation

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

The given sources are primary. No independent coverage to justify notability. Promotional intent is obvious. Long list of references but hardly few relevant, mostly filled with journal articles. Fails Notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, India, and Kerala. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 11:46, 13 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.

Kirtiraj Gaikwad

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

No Independent significant coverage about him and his work. Published scientific articles alone doesn't inherit notability. Draft was moved back to main space without adding anything valuable. Question of COI is also raised by other reviewers. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Science, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Korea, Uttarakhand, Canada, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately the nominator has made a fundamental error: scientific articles are sufficient for notability under WP:NPROF#C1. At 42 his h-factor is a little low, and 300 is not that large for his highest cited paper. However, if you look at his areas in GScholar they are not high cite topics, so 42 is a clear pass of WP:NPROF. The nominator may want to reconsider. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., the nominators statement "Question of COI is also raised by other reviewers" appears to be incorrect, I see no such statements by any reviewers (myself included). Ldm1954 (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPROF#C1 under this there are other points too, just number of publications are not sufficient in my opinion. Regarding COI you are right, I mis interpretated "SELF PUBLISHED SOURCES " as COI. Thanks for pointing it out. Scientific articles , I mean any published article in a Journal is called scientific article and this doesn't justify notability. We need to see quality and impact of such publications. Thanks for getting involved in this discussion. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are not correct in your interpretation. So long as the journals are not predatory and there is no evidence of citation manipulation we accept them. (Manipulation can occur, see WT:NPROF#C1 and mathematics). However. I saw (please note tense) nothing when I checked the article a week ago. His most cited work is in Environmental Chemistry Letters which is a decent Springer journal, please see here Ldm1954 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your contribution in this article. I am aware of Springer journal. Let me have a review on his published articles once again. Thank you Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NPROF#C1, I do agree with Ldm1954. Taabii (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the importance of independent coverage for notability. While the article may not currently highlight significant independent sources, the subject's work is well-documented in peer-reviewed journals, which are highly regarded in academic circles. I can revise the article to add more independent references and clarify any areas of concern. Regarding the COI issue, I have no personal or financial ties to the subject, but I can address any concerns on the Talk page.

Here are the some his independent scientific research highlights in national and internation news and scientific articles:

IIT Roorkee's eco-packaging extends fresh produce shelf life by one week

IIT Roorkee innovates nutritious edible millet straws as a sustainable alternative alternative to plastic

In a first, IIT Roorkee develops kodo millet based edible cup

Indian researchers develop nutritious edible cups to replace conventional plastic applications Bhushanpkg (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Bhushanpkg (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: please 'do not add those sources. Those are exactly the type of popular science/advertising which we do not want in an encyclopedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some independent scientist new articles.

IIT Roorkee's eco-packaging extends fresh produce shelf life by one week

IIT Roorkee innovates nutritious edible millet straws as a sustainable alternative alternative to plastic

In a first, IIT Roorkee develops kodo millet based edible cup

Indian researchers develop nutritious edible cups to replace conventional plastic applications

14.139.233.131 (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there is no evidence to substantiate notability. Does not meet the criteria for notability as outlined in WP:GNG. Commenting by IP address signifies the same user as the article's creator. B-Factor (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
probably delete, associate professor isn't enough, and although it's true that peer-reviewed literature counts as independent, for the purposes of NPROF C1 there need to be highly-cited publications with strong impact. Gaikwad has some fairly well-cited publications, but, partly because of his alarmingly high rate of publication, there seems to be quite a high level of self-citation. Also most of his output is a very, very large number of articles of very narrow scope, and reviews; I'm not 100% convinced that this is in keeping with NPROF. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while it's rare for us to keep an associate professor, it's not unheard of (see, e.g., Barbette Spaeth). That's true in the cases where they have gotten tenure, but have not gotten full professorship for some bureaucratic reason. However, to keep per WP:HEY, I'd really prefer that the sources found literally be added to the article. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep associate professors are usually fully tenured professors, Donna Strickland was an associate professor at the time she received her Nobel prize so this should be a non-argument. Instead we should look at his actual impact in the field. His citation profile looks sufficient for WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 42 and a total of 16 publications with 100+ citations to pass the bar and is in line with previous outcomes of academics. --hroest 20:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being an associate professor is absolutely not evidence of non-notability. Many associate professors are notable through their academic accomplishments, and many others are not; the rank provides no evidence either way and we must look at other criteria. In this case, the citation record and WP:PROF#C1 are convincing enough to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn : I find improvement in article after being nominated for deletion. This made me reconsider my decision and hereby withdraw my nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, but at this point we need to wait out the full AfD period because there still remain other delete !votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grim (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No significant reviews, awards, or actors. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Kpg jhp jm 09:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and DonaldD. Coeusin (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be at least one proper review in this book: [20] (not fully readable). --Mika1h (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, @Mika1h:. The review can be read via archive.org here. The content of the review is as expected, would need more to pass WP:NFILM. Coeusin (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Guides like Videohound are not considered to be usable because they're meant to be more of a database than an actual review. They have a rating, but the actual "review" part is usually a 1-2 line synopsis of the film with maybe a single word of commentary thrown in, usually "WOOF!". I loved flipping through it back in the day, just to see what obscure films I could find as the book's focus was on being comprehensive rather than reviewing. But yeah, not usable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I forget, what was the stance on Something Awful reviews? I think they were usable, but there were some specific requirements for them? It's been so long since I even had a review for that site pop up in a search that I've honestly forgotten. In any case, if we can't find reviews this can always redirect to Paul Matthews (filmmaker). No reason why not in that situation. But I could swear that there was coverage for this movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found a review in Spinegrinder - that's considered to be a RS. Not enough on its own to keep, but a decent start. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the site The Schlock Pit, it looks like that might be usable as a source. The people running the site curated the Arrow Video box set Enter the Video Store: Empire of Screams, which received a decent amount of coverage - enough to where it could almost warrant its own article. They're highlighted in this article by Slant Magazine. (But I don't like having articles on box sets like that, so if it does pass I'm not going to make the article.) They've been cited as a RS in books by the University of Zaragoza Press (by es:Héctor Caño Díaz) and McFarland (by Joseph Maddrey). I think they were cited by more, but I'd have to check. Probably worth running by RS/N or the horror WP. To be fair, I'm less looking at this to save the article and more just as a general source for horror. There are relative few genre-specific sites and many of those tend to focus on the big players, so it'd be nice to have one that focuses more on well, the schlock. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they might have contributed to or been used as a source in "It Came From the Video Aisle!: Inside Charles Band’s Full Moon Entertainment Studio" through Schiffer Publishing - no snippet view but I do have a copy floating around somewhere I can check through. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened up a discussion at RS/N, but I think that The Schlock Pit is a RS. Arrow Video is a pretty big deal and can pick pretty much whomever they want, so for them to pick the TSP's writers to provide commentary for multiple films and put together a box set is a pretty big point towards them being RS. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like TSP is usable as a source per the discussion so far at RS/N. I'd like a little more before I would comfortably say that this passes NFILM - although I suppose the two reviews do technically pass. I just like to leave AfD'd film articles a bit meatier. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Davies, Clive (2015). Spinegrinder: the Movies Most Critics Won't Write About. Headpress. ISBN 978-1-909394-27-8. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Grim (kong) (1995 UK) D/W: Paul Matthews P: Elizabeth Matthews • The houses in the suburbs of Woodland Hills seem to be sinking into the ground, the area being situated over a network of caves. Amateur sleuths bicker and argue as they descend into the caves to root out the problem. A couple of them secretly know that it's a (man-in-a-suit) monster who can pop through portals in the ground, having summoned it accidentally with a Ouija board. My favourite part in this stupid, cheap horror flick with tacky visual FX is when the monster grabs a woman in her sofa chair from her living room and pulls her underground. The makeshift expedition find the sofa chair, and the girl chained-up. I didn't realise until after watching the thing that it was shot in England (including Clearwell Caves in Gloucestershire), so I guess the Brit cast's American accents were more convincing than usual."
2. Muir, John Kenneth (2011). Horror Films of the 1990s. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 376–377. ISBN 978-0-7864-4012-2. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Before The Descent (2006), there was Grim. And thank God for The Descent, since it washed away all memories of Grim. Grim opens with a freeze-frame shot of the moon. The shot lasts long enough for the audience to determine that it is, well, a freeze-frame. After such an inauspicious beginning, the film then follows a hulking troll monster named Grim as he abducts the residents of a town by opening mystical portals directly into their homes. ... After a while, seven only vaguely distinguishable characters, led by a mining expert, descend into the mines to find Grim and the missing residents of Woodland Hills. And then all forward momentum in the narrative just freezes. The movie actually stalls as the audience is treated to apparently endless scenes of people walking through dark caves, intercut with the monster lumbering his way through — wait for it — different. ... If this isn't the most boring, empty horror film ever made, it has to be in contention."
3. Tavener, Roger (1995-04-12). "Unmasked". Western Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2025-05-16. Retrieved 2025-05-16 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Grim, a gruesome monster, dormant for thousands of years, has been woken by a seance. They should have let sleeping Grim lie, because he's now going to wreak hideous revenge on his human neighbours. Grim by name and nature, he's the star of a $1 million Hollywood movie being made by the Matthews family of Witcombe, near Gloucester. ... As usual, Grim is totally home-grown. Paul Matthews wrote the script after taking his children to Clearwell Caves in the Forest of Dean. The rest of the family got the production on the road. ... During a break in filming 100 ft below surface in the limestone labyrinth Pete gasped: ... The film, due for cinema release around the world in the New Year, also stars Natural Born Killers actor Emmanual Xuereb and Tres Hanley."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Grim to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Cunard and ROTP, which establish NFILM. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing found by myself and Cunard. I've written up a synopsis for this. I had to watch parts of this multiple times because I kept remembering things wrong. This has to be hands down one of the worst ones I've seen, because I kept forgetting bits and pieces and so much of it just blends together - perfect for Rifftrax. But that's just a side note. This now passes NFILM in my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romuald Starosielec

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

Very minor Polish politician, never elected to any serious post. Declared intend to run for president twice, which got very little coverage, either. No pl interwiki. Seems to fail WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teee Dollar of Lagos

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

Non-notable TikToker. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources, promotional nonsense, no notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article published yesterday by somebody with zero edits before this. TikTok notability, while many people may know this individual (with over 5 million followers on the platform), he clearly does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. All the articles cited are websites that are not known for genuine news outlets - there is nothing to indicate he has done anything noteworthy outside of TikTok. Ré union! 19:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable Tiktoker. That he has 5.8 million followers doesn't mean he is notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability besides social media. No SIGCOV in RS. Doesn't have enough notability to pass WP:GNG, WP:ENT or WP:NBIO. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO as nominated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rare Disease Research

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

This is a small contract research organization that contributes a small part to large international trials run by others. I don't think that this would be evident to readers, which makes this article primarily promotional in nature. It would be helpful to have independent reliable sources that have the centre itself, rather than the trials to which it contributes, as the focus. I haven't been able to find any, and have not had any response to notability tagging since February. Klbrain (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Nguyễn Anh

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, its promotional tone and reliance on primary sources Oia-pop (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Barabash

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

Deleted on uk wiki 3 months ago for the second time. not notable as politician nor as GNG. Oia-pop (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Oia-pop (talk) 05:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Defense of Cyprus

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

Turkish invasion of Cyprus (1974) is a well-documented but this so-called "The Defense of Cyprus" appears to be a descriptive phrase rather than a subject independently covered in academic sources. The material overlaps heavily with Turkish invasion of Cyprus, and fails WP:GNG. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 05:05, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zulus Motorcycle Club

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

While searching for information on this, I found very little. I was unable to find any sigcov searching in books, news, or otherwise. They're listed in a US gang assessment but very little else. There are some hits on newspapers.com [21], mostly in the obituaries of members, and brief mentions in relation to crimes their members committed which also did not get sigcov (a mass shooting and their headquarters getting bombed. you'd think this would get sigcov) so they verifiably exist, but no sigcov to be found. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Organizations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 13 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosis (disambiguation)

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

I'm not sure this is a valid disambiguation page. WP:BCA suggests that this sort of stuff (everything related to foreseeing the future) should be an article, but then I realized the existing BCA already exists at the Prediction article, so here's an AfD instead. Duckmather (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Duckmather (talk) 05:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Delete this. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn, just gonna rescope it (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 German refugee attack plot

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. And GNG. I can't find any mention of this after the immediate day of discovery, I assume they were convicted but if they did it seems to have never been reported? Searching is hampered by the lack of detail in every article on this I can find. Does not have dewiki article, which is not a guarantee but they tend to have lower standards for inclusion especially for topics relevant to German-speaking countries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Germany. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was discussed again by large German news organizations in 2016:

And here is an article referencing it again in 2019: https://www.fr.de/politik/rechtsextreme-wegen-geplanter-anschlaege-angeklagt-11094449.html

It was also the subject of a "Kleine Anfrage" in the German Bundestag: https://www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/presse/hib/201607/436118-436118

As a result of the event, the German Ministry of the Interior banned the group in 2016: https://www.bundesanzeiger.de/pub/publication/5C6lHQiksjoTRNdcTuA?0

It doesn't have a dedicated German article, but it is discussed on this German Wikipedia page: https://de.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Metaverse&lang=en&q=Weisse_Wölfe (scroll down to "Verbot von „Weisse Wölfe Terrorcrew", and sorry that I don't know how to link to the German Wiki directly).

I don't know NP:EVENT well, but the combination of coverage plus a follow on event (the Ministry of the Interior banning the group because of its threat to the constitution) suggests to me that it passes. a bunch of penguins (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, have you noticed that Google news searches have gotten really bad lately? For many different topics, it now no longer returns articles that I know exist - and can find by going to the news site directly and searching there). a bunch of penguins (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that at least answers the question of what happened (thank you for that). I don't find this coverage very notability convincing when it comes to the event but the group is probably notable. I can withdraw this and I or someone else can convert it into an article on "Weisse Wölfe Terrorcrew". PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Store Bar shooting

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. The single source is a two sentence non-sigcov listing. Tried to look for sources, found nothing else. Could probably be merged into one of our lists on the Troubles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Northern Ireland. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not always described exactly as the "Stone Bar shooting", I can find more than a few (and have added several) sources which cover the subject event as a topic in its own right (as expected by WP:NEVENT). And which place the event in context and describe it as a catalyst for something else (as expected by WP:EFFECT). While several of the ""pub shootings" in 1976 seem to have been used as an excuse for each other, and so their notability/notoriety may be connected, each also likely has independent ("non-inherited") notability. Personally I think this title meets WP:NEVENT to the extent that it should be kept. Certainly can't support outright deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I wonder if this title should be moved. As, even ignoring that (per WP:NCTHE) the inclusion of the definite in the title is questionable, most of the sources I found seem to refer to the subject as the "Walker's Bar [attack]". Rather than "Store Bar [shooting]". Certainly more of the sources (which may have impacted the nom's own WP:BEFORE) seem to use "Walker's Bar" over "Store Bar"... Guliolopez (talk) Guliolopez (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources you added aren't WP:SIGCOV, except the one extremely local source, they're all just a few brief sentences in the context of much larger topics, passing mentions. I don't mind it being merged somewhere else but we cannot have an article based on a few passing mentions. The longest source is extremely local coverage, which also doesn't help. This still fails the event guideline if all we can find is that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. Thanks for your note. I added some of the other sources which also arose in my WP:BEFORE. Including Wharton (2013, Part 2, p.31) who covers the specifics. In terms of a merge, if you want to propose a possible target, then happy to consider an AtD proposal. But the nom, as presented, was for deletion. Which I (still) don't support. (Fully appreciate that NEVENT and NLASTING are not "slam dunks". And completely understand why you nominated. But, after my own WP:BEFORE, it's just not a nomination I support.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you not support deletion if it doesn't pass the notability guidelines? I can't think of a clear AtD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did not state that the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines. I've already stated that I believe it does meet NEVENT and NLASTING. Just perhaps not by a slam-dunk/clear-cut/landslide/black-and-white margin. Grey area perhaps. A judgement call. Where AfD contributors may make different judgements. That's why you opened this AfD right? For input from others? (FYI. Typically, when an AfD discussion has been opened, there is no need to add/re-add related tags. The NN and SIGCOV tags are intended to prompt discussion and advise of possible deletion. And are therefore largely redundant to an AfD tag. I removed the NN tag on this basis. You restored it. Another editor removed it again (for the same reason as mine). You added yet another tag shortly afterwards. I'm not sure what purpose you expect these tags serve (beyond the AfD tag and this discussion) but it seems unnecessary. IMO.) Guliolopez (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability tag is not redundant to the AfD tag and should not be removed until the discussion is concluded or the dispute has been clearly answered. The other tag is to make it clear that there is, still, no significant coverage cited here. We cannot make an article based off a bunch of one sentence mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my rationale. Politely I thought. And with an expressed appreciation as to why opening this AfD discussion was a reasonable/correct thing to do. I'm not interested in being WP:BADGERed further. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Historical subject, and has gained coverage even after decades of its happening. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996 There is not a single source here that counts for notability. Source 1 is a single brief sentence, source 2/6 is two sentences, source 4 is one sentence. Source 3 is a local source, source 5 is the same local source that comes out to about ~5 (still not sigcov). Lost Lives might have something but given that source and prior consensus about its use at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean McIlvenna (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William James Carson that being the only source (if it is sigcov) would not be great. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's a few modern sources, such as in-depth local news pieces [22][23], brief coverage in several books and papers [24][25][26], academic chronologies [27]. I would be surprised if there's no further coverage from 1976 until today for this sort of attack. MarioGom (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note for context: I really wouldn't be, because of the sheer amount of tragedies involved in the Troubles. It's tragic, but the amount of violence meant the attention paid to individual "smaller" incidents was lessened. A lot of the smaller incidents tend to have a local news report and be listed briefly without sigcov in academia, but this is not near WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG. The bigger ones will get sigcov in books or the like, but this did not. There is no significant coverage anywhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MarioGom. It is apparent that the shooting has had enduring coverage. No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NEVENT. No particular reason to delete. Could we do less AfDs and concentrate more on the article space? gidonb (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb How does it meet NEVENT when there is no sigcov??? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no great answer to that. It's like asking how 1 plus 1 can equal 2 if it already equals 5. In a world where 1 plus 1 equals 5, 1 plus 1 should not also equal 2, yet that would be a parallel universe. The best answer was already in my statement: Could we do less AfDs and concentrate more on the article space? gidonb (talk) 14:09, 17 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incuspaze

AfDs for this article:

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

No suitable sources for demonstrating WP:ORGCRIT. Creator appears to have copied (not moved) this from Draft:Incuspaze. I advise him to continue working on the draft and submit this through the Articles for creation process if he can find suitable sources. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nominator's views. Taabii (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since the draft submission process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP due to lack of significant coverage. The three references currently in the article appear to be trivial announcements. Yuvaank (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Abdo

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

The seat of Calwall hasn’t been called and the Australian Electoral Commission, according to the ABC, has stated that the count is complicated and a result would not be known until preferences are distributed^[1]. As such, Basem Abdo isn’t the member for Calwell and outside of his potential being a member of Parliament, has no notability. Geelongite (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Jordan, Kuwait, Palestine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abdo is up by over 24 thousand votes. If you really want to be anal about it you could redirect to the division page until it is called. That doesn't require deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess. The article creator probably should have waited until the seat was actually called, but now that the article exists I don't think it really needed to be nominated for deletion while we're still waiting on the result. The result will be official in about a week and based on the count it seems very likely that Abdo will win (although given the complicated preference distribution, the 2PP estimate is a bit misleading). If someone feels strongly about draftifying this for the couple of days between this AfD closing and the seat being called then that's fine by me, but this whole discussion is probably a bit of a waste of time. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2025/guide/calw

Keep - I deprodded this, because its deletion without debate would likely be controversial. I think that, where politics and elections are close enough that a recount is necessary, the leader(s) should be kept for the pendency of the recount. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the same case as Emma Comer per WP:NPOL. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is splitting hairs, if preferences change the result we can always redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 07:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per MCE89 -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 12:31, 19 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. Consensus was to keep the article, as there were no strong delete !votes (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Los Angeles Rams–Green Bay Packers game

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

Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#Sports. I do not see what about this game merits an article. A 23 point comeback is far from a record. Sourcing does not indicate that this game rose above the notability of any other game, with only a few blog posts that are recent. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, California, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lee Remmell highlighted the game in two articles from 2004 and 2006. I will also note that the game is mentioned in a LOT of 2013 articles after the 2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game (which is also at AFD) (see here, which is in the article). Didn't want to blatantly add a bunch of those type of sources, but I definitely can add more. There are two full length "blog" articles on the game ([28][29]), both written by writers with extensive background writing about the NFL and Packers, likely meeting the threshold of a "subject matter expert". The game is also referenced in Cliff Christl's definitive history on the first 100 years of Packers history (a physical print book), which is in the article and seems to be missed by the nominator. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to note that I have added four book sources, all discussing the game, to the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a 23-point comeback is impressive, but considering there are games with a bigger comeback margin without it's own dedicated article (such as the 2022 AFC Wild Card game between Los Angeles and Jacksonville for example.) The coverage spike in 2013 was only temporary. It may be a team milestone, but can it be merged into the team's season article? Absolutely. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles not having been created yet does not play a strong part in deletion discussions regarding another article. Noting that coverage in 2013, and then even later, is just a spike and somehow doesn't count toward sustained coverage does not make sense to me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes GNG under our current guidelines, with ongoing coverage for decades after the game itself, similar to (but more impressive than) the 2013 game that ended in keep. I am not really sure there shouldn't be a carveout from our normal notability guidelines for games like this which are not particularly special, but under existing guidelines this passes, and I don't think articles like this are egregious enough to warrant an IAR exception.Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just wanted to note again that since nomination I have added four addition book sources to the article, helping to further established continued coverage and notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gonzo fan has clearly demonstrated that a substantive article can be written about this, WP:HEY Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:28, 20 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 03:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Card

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

does not meet criteria of WP:NCORP/WP:ORGCRIT or the broader WP:GNG. Every citation in the article is either the company’s own web domains, lightly rewritten press‑release items in local Indonesian business blogs (Infobanknews, Techverse.Asia, Kontan, Republika, Warta Ekonomi, Kompas), or brief venture‑funding notices (e.g. Preqin’s one‑sentence financing blurb). None offers the significant, independent, secondary coverage that policy requires. A thorough news‑database and web search turned up nothing beyond routine funding announcements and product‑launch snippets, which are explicitly classed as WP:ROUTINE and thus insufficient for notability.

The subject is also very young, so any claim to lasting notability is WP:TOOSOON. The article’s promotional tone, product‑feature list, and heavy reliance on primary sources underscore the absence of neutral, verifiable coverage. With no evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the topic fails Wikipedia’s organisational notability standard. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Technology, and Indonesia. AndesExplorer (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respectfully oppose the deletion of the Honest Card Wikipedia page for several important reasons:

The company has demonstrated significance beyond routine announcements. Their $19.7 million Series A funding represents substantial investor confidence, they've secured official licensing from Indonesia's Financial Services Authority (OJK), and have achieved over 1 million users on Google Play Store Indonesia.

While applying WP:GEOSCOPE, we should recognize that Honest Card has particular regional significance in Indonesia, a nation of 270+ million people. Several cited sources are established Indonesian publications with journalistic standing. Kompas is Indonesia's largest newspaper, while Infobanknews, Republika, Kontan, and Warta Ekonomi are recognized business publications that have provided independent coverage beyond press releases.

Regarding WP:TOOSOON concerns, Honest Card has already achieved significant milestones that suggest notability: governmental licensing, major funding, Mastercard partnership, and substantial user adoption. These aren't preliminary achievements but established accomplishments.

Rather than deletion, I suggest we follow Wikipedia's collaborative spirit by improving the page: adding more independent sources as they become available, addressing any promotional tone, and expanding context about Indonesia's fintech sector. Geraeldo Sinaga (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesnt meet WP:NCORP, doesnt have any independent coverage and the article contains no real information and is mainly an ad for the company. --hroest 15:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything beyond the usual WP:SERIESA stuff. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:12, 15 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.

Tercio of Idiáquez

AfDs for this article:

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

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Military units of battalion size or larger are generally considered to be notable. The answer is editing and improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy-based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

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

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, first of all, it is a registered NGO and relates to WP:Three, it has these patricular sources that you should check, or you can add sources to establish notability and search on the internet, why didn't you check or if you did check, atleast say so. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:28 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
And also, It's not "so little", please explain how large does the article have to be, I'll find the sources and add it. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 7:32 AM, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment Being "short" is not grounds for deletion. That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. If by "it can be attached" to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami you mean it can be merged there, then why is it nominated for deletion? For anyone searching for sources, the more common name is probably "Bangladesh Masjid Mission". Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Worldbruce's statement is correct, being short is not a reason for deletion, like if It's short, then why don't you expand the page? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like how I first check and fix pages and search until deciding a different approach, You should try to first search or use a different approach. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful if you read WP:AfD and this page can definitely be improved, AfD is not always the solution, editing it and adding information may make it suitable to stay as a separate article on Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This initiative is widely coverage in Bengali language. And Its have significant social contribution. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there is coverage of this in the Bengali language or any other language, add text supported by references from that language to the article so that it meets the notability criteria. It doesn’t matter what kind of social contribution it has. I think it is necessary to meet the notability criteria by using text supported by reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somajyoti: It doesn't work that way. See WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXISTS. This discussion is based on existing sources even if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see in the cited sources, there's very little coverage of the Bangladesh Mosque Mission. For example, translating the first source yields no more than a few lines of relevant information: "He said these things in his speech as the chief guest at the day-long Imam training workshop organized by Bangladesh Mosque Mission, Chittagong North District." If there isn't any source that's entirely or mostly focused on the 'Bangladesh Mosque Mission', I'll lean towards delete . PS: Translating the other sources gives a similar impression -- just irrelevant passing mentions. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striked double vote. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unstruck, there's no double !vote. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References no. 2, 5, and 9 used here -- namely Bangla Tribune, Daily Sun (Bangladesh), and Bangla Tribune respectively -- may be considered reliable in the context of Bangladesh, excluding the rest. Somajyoti ✉ 15:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are many sources, looking at one and then saying its not enough to establish notability is absolute bogus, there are several in-depth sources and The Daily Ittefaq, Daily Sun, Bangla Tribune are reliable sources and others too, thus it passes, it is also a registered NGO and plays a important role in social reform, it left a impact and passes WP:GNG thus it deserves a separate article plus the article is not even 2 months old now, like give some time for improvement, Somajyoti and Maniacal ! Paradoxical! plus how is it not relevant? you have failed to explain, explain properly, Somajyoti also, you should explain your reason. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept per WP:N, WP:NEXIST and etc. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to let others weigh in. BEIS, please be mindful of bludgeoning.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everything written about the organisation in academic circles traces back to one 1983 article by Emajuddin Ahamed, "Current Trends of Islam in Bangladesh". Many have repeated what he said, but in 40 years no one has added anything new.

Ahamed, and his successors, invariably mention the organisation in a list. For example, "Among these organizations, the prominent ones are the Islamic Foundation Bangladesh, Bangladesh Masjid Mission, Islam Prachar Samity, Quranic School Society, Bangladesh Islamic Center, Bangladesh Jamiatul Mudarreseen, World Islam Mission (Qur’an and Sunnah), Ittehadul Ummah, Council for Islamic Socio-Cultural Organizations, Bangladesh Institute of Islamic Thought (BIIT), Bangladesh Quran Shikhya Board, Islamic Research Society-Bangladesh, World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY)-Bangladesh, Mercy Mission, Saimum Shilpi Gosthi, and the Phulkuri Ashar. They [blah blah blah]". Or, "Jamaat-e-Islami operates through a number of fronts such as ..., Bangladlesh Masjid Mission, ..., that [blah blah blah]".

There is some encyclopedic content in the "blah blah blah", perhaps two paragraphs explaining what these orgaisations do, but it's the same for all of them. Wikipedia doesn't have (or want) articles on 16 organisations that all say much the same thing, the only differences being a few details like date of formation, date of registration, and who the officers are. We are an encyclopedia, we summarize.

What about non-academic sources? Available news articles are of three types: ones that cover their connection to Jamaat-e-Islami, ones that make allegations (no court seems to have weighed in) against one of the many branches of the organization (Rajshahi), and ones that are routine announcements of discussions/lectures/meetings/seminars sponsored by various branches. The first group do not establish notability separate from Jamaat. The second group, if the allegations go anywhere, might demonstrate notability of the Rajshahi branch or of an event - a crime or scandal at that branch. The third group do nothing to establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge If a List of Islamic socio-cultural organisations in Bangladesh existed, this could be merged there. Since it doesn't, merge the content to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the parent organisation. If further encyclopedic information is written about it in reliable sources, to the point that it outgrows the parent article, it then can be spun off into its own stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Most sources mention them in context with that it seems? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Timex Group USA. Consensus was to redirect, with no keep or delete !votes (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timex Black Max

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

It doesn't look like there are enough sources for GNG, maybe delete or redirect to Timex? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timex Group. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect easy option is to blank and redirect. Would prefer a redirect to Timex Group USA as opposed to Timex Group since it has a more complete history of the watchmaker. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:37, 13 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 Steamtown National Historic Site#Locomotives. ✗plicit 03:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Mills Railway 7

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

This isn't a notable locomotive. It's only been sourced to one link and I can't find anything else about it. One locomotive among many at the Steamtown park. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steamtown National Historic Site#Locomotives. Not individually notable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm ok with the redirect if it should be decided to go that way. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anymore support for redirect ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pi's rationale. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Mills, Indiana

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

A literal flour mill, as written about in this news article. It has since shut down. It enjoyed some local note but I question whether we can justify an article on it; in any case, it's not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a local flour mill. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:30, 13 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 Procedural Keep‎. Nominator has been sock blocked and no one is arguing for deletion. A merger discussion can happen on the Talk, or an established editor is welcome to renominate. Star Mississippi 02:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Babarloi Dharna

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

Article is not providing the significant coverage. According to chatgpt.zero, 98% of article has been created from Artificial Intelligence. The protests details also provided in the Controversial canals project on Indus River's political developments section. Article also fails to pass the WP:GNG and also edited by only two users. Some text excerpted from Controversial canals project on Indus River and there is no sense to keep the article stand alone. Misopatam (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While there may be concerns about AI involvement, Wikipedia's policies do not forbid using AI-generated text as long as the content complies with Wikipedia’s core content policies — especially verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. The subject of this article has been sourced from the reliable sources and doesn't fail WP:GNG. Meanwhile, some of the portion may be covered under the Controversial canals project on Indus River, but the details specific to the protests are substantial enough to merit a standalone article.The article can be improved by human copy editing, rather than deleted completely. Content that overlaps can be trimmed or consolidated, but the existence of partial duplication is not a enough reason for deletion under WP:ContentFork or WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.If the article has capability, we prefer improving it, not deleting it. The topic is current and may attract more coverage over time and It serves readers seeking specific information, which may not be easily found elsewhere. Issues can be solved by cleanup, therefore I recommend improvement if necessary, not deletion. JogiAsad (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you to merge the article in the Controversial canals project on Indus River, in which you can create a separate section named Protests and can write the required text in own words with Reliable and independent sources. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to merge Babarloi Dharna into the "Controversial canals project on Indus River" article; because Babarloi Dharna is a specific protest or an event and significant enough on its own, meanwhile The Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests. While the two topics are related, they are distinct: Babarloi Dharna is a notable, standalone protest movement that received significant and enough independent media coverage, (i.e news articles, reports, studies, etc.). It is not merely a minor part of the broader canals project, but a major event with its own political and social impact. So therefore it deserves its own Wikipedia article based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specially WP:GNG — general notability guideline) and Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:N). Events with substantial coverage in reliable sources merit their own articles. Merging would diminish the independent significance of the Dharna.
I argue that:

The two topics are related, but not identical.

Babarloi Dharna is not merely a subtopic; it is a standalone notable event.WP:N

Merging would obscure the full coverage and importance of the Dharna, i.e. Sit-ins itself.

Controversial canals project on Indus River is a larger, broader infrastructure project with multiple issues, possibly including protests

Merging would downplay an important social movement or event that has independent significance. WP:NOTMERGE.
JogiAsad (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cholistan Canal Project. Fails WP:NEVENT. Gheus (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your merge suggestion isn't relevant to this article. I have elaborated above in details. And it doesn't fails WP:NEVENT. JogiAsad (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article's title should be changed from Babarloi Dharna to Babarloi Sit-in because former title is not giving news results in search that is why it looks insignificant otherwise the protest has captured significant attention from notable news agencies. If the content of article is artificially generated than it can be easily rephrased or re-written. However, it should not be merged with Cholistan Canal Project as this article covers one the major political movements in the history of Pakistan. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why you have not fixed it or re write it. First improve the article than give the statement that now the problems have been fixed and than vote for the Keep. Misopatam (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Done. I'm taking down your vote for now. Thank you Misopatam (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cmt.Issues have been fixed, further you can also fix it.

JogiAsad (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Controversial Canals on Indus River, or Cholistan Canal Project both articles are about the mega project (which has become controversial). It's important to pay attention to the details of a large infrastructure project that has sparked controversy. On the other hand, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in highlights a different social and political movement, which covers a public protest against these proposed controversial canal projects.

Combining the protest article with the project-related articles would mix up the topic of dissent with how that dissent is expressed, which isn't right. Just like the Faizabad sit-in is significant enough to have its own article, the Babarloi Dharna / Sit-in article is about the movement against those controversial topics and deserves the same treatment as a standalone article.It is an important civic response, complete with its own timeline, dynamics, leaders, and political effects. For these reasons, the article about the Babarloi Dharna/Sit-in should have its own entry to keep the narrative clear and true to the essence of this protest movement. JogiAsad (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to fix the issues, updated the article as per current status. See page revisions. JogiAsad (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers (band)

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

I couldn't verify the "international #1" claim. If such a claim is false, this page clearly fails WP:BAND. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Norway. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Chart history. Coverage of single. Coverage of album. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, the third hit in the single search is about Brothers acquiring a gold record. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per WP:BAND if you have Top 100 song in any country chart then you qualify.Darkm777 (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, I believe that this is the band here,
* NRK, 19 May 2009 - (Come)back in black Tvillingbrødrene fra Vevelstad herjet på listene for 15 år siden. Yes they had the hit as stated. This is just another one of those Wikipedia pages that folks haven't remembered to put in refs. ~SIGH~ I'll try to put in a coupe of refs.
Karl Twist (talk) 10:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have done some sectioning, added content with refs and added a category. I'll try to come back in a few days. But, in the interim if someone wants to put some work into it, I believe it will be worthwhile. Google Translator can be a good help. Cheers
Karl Twist (talk) 11:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough relaible sources has been added since AFD nomination. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:50, 13 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. ✗plicit 03:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwater Community School

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

Subject does not appear to be notable - simply existing or having notable alumni does not mean that a school is notable, unless the school itself has been the subject of reliable, secondary coverage. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ireland. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Though I've myself triggered more than a few AfD/PROM noms on non-notable schools, I think this one might just about meet WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Barely. While most of the coverage I found in my own WP:BEFORE is from local/regional papers (like that in The Avondhu of school extension project and alumni), there is some coverage in national outlets (like Irish Examiner and Irish Independent - granted largely "match report" style reporting that is not especially WP:INDEPTH on the school itself). If there is consensus that the school doesn't have independent notability, then (per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and as an WP:ATD) I wonder if the title should be a redirect to Lismore,_County_Waterford#Education. Where much of the cited content could be merged. Outright deletion does not, IMO, seem to be an appropriate outcome... Guliolopez (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. apart from articles about individual athletes from the school, I dont really see in-depth coverage of the school itself. I dont believe that coverage of athletes or participants in science competitions should count towards notability of the school itself since it is about the person that competes and not their school. The only article about the school itself seems to be the building project but that doesnt seem to provide enough material to write a full article. --hroest 20:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:39, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Veličkovski

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Database sources only. — Moriwen (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and North Macedonia. — Moriwen (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 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 03:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of settlements on Christmas Island

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

This list is unnecessary. There are only 5 places listed. Ethel seemingly isn't a settlement, but a beach. The others are all mentioned within the lead of Christmas Island. Steelkamp (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely pointless. Athel cb (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It makes sense to have a list of populated places by state but not for such a small entity as this island. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 14 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 03:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of populated places in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

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

This page is pointless. It is a list of two places, both of which are already mentioned on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Steelkamp (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, Australia, and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. Athel cb (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It makes sense to have a list of populated places by state but not for such a small entity as these islands. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced stub for a long time. Shankargb (talk) 23:23, 13 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.

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings

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

Opening introduction explicitly admits to "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." The combination of these two trees is the entire basis of the article, which seems like not good enough for an article. It is highly speculative and not verifiable and the original authors (Tarn and Narain) have been criticised in more recent scholarship for speculative inventions. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForWhomTheSunShines, I understand the concerns and understand that Tarn and Narain may be inaccurate, but these are the texts that I have. I know that other authors say something different, so when I get those texts, I (or someone else) will revise the trees. Additionally, I give the kings several different fathers (for example, see Apollodotus I in the tree, who has 5 different possible fathers, so I am taking all possible considerations into account here). I also put dotted lines for some kings when the relationship is very unclear, making it being speculation clear. So I am making it clear these Greco-Bactrian trees, just like an Egyptian one (like the 1st Dynasty), will not necessarily be fully accurate. As for the speculation and unverifiable of the tree, well, we do have Greco-Bactrian coinage. The reason I said "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." is because I want to make it very clear that is a probable layout for how the various kings are related to each other and is not supposed to be taken as dogma, just like many ancient family trees. If you want me to find different authors and replace Tarn and Narain, I will. I just wanted to use two of the most important Greco-Bactrian historians who helped establish the discipline.

OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: couldn't this be saved simply by identifying the differences between the two authors' reconstructions, either by presenting different versions of the trees, or by showing the different positions taken by each author using the varying line and border options? If other scholars disagree with their opinions, that can also be noted on or adjacent to the trees. I will suggest that the trees might need to be less horizontal and more vertical. I never stretch my browser window to the whole width of the screen, and without that the trees exceed the width of the page. But this, like noting disagreements between the authors named and other scholarship, can be achieved through ordinary editing; the page does not have to be deleted in order to improve it to Wikipedia standards. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this comment. I agree that it could be saved this way, and I will add the position of the various authors too. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authors' proposals themselves are questionable and unreliable. The first citation for the first tree is clear that it is “pedigree of the Euthydemids and Eucratides to show the fictitious descent from Alexander." (emphasis added). Tarn, William Woodthorpe (1966). The Greeks in Bactria and India (2 ed.). New York, U.S.: Cambridge University Press. p. 568. ISBN 9781108009416. Retrieved 30 December 2024. The placement of a daughter of Euthydemus I marrying a Chinese emperor and bearing is son is based on speculation from an uncited paragraph. There's mashing together of speculative theory throughout the page.

This seems to be a violation of reason for deleting #6, "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes." The combination of multiple speculative, unreliable articles into one family tree is effectively the construction of an original theory or conclusion. It also violates ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if we ignore the descent from Alexander, doesn't Tarn still state everything else, according to The Greeks in Bactria and India pgs 71ff? And I agree that the connection to Qin Shi Huangdi is spurious, I just added it on the off chance it could be correct. It was taken from Christopoulos, Lucas (September 2022). "SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS: Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.: University of Pennsylvania. pp. 84–86. Retrieved 4 January 2025. Also, if we clean up and or/delete this article (hopefully not because I did work hard on it), we must clean up the individual articles on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings too, as sources need to be cited for each king's article and other changes need to be made. However, we don't have to delete this article, as it can be cleaned up to remove it of any "speculative theory." OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the off chance" is not a reason to add something to an article. And you are correct, many of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek king articles should also be cleaned up. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, it is my first article that I made. I did not know those rules. But tomorrow, I will delete Qin Shi Huangdi, as I see now that the Lucas reference in the Xiutu article was removed. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Not ready for main space. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Umm....other editors allowed my article to be published back in December. Why would we put it back into draft? OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Strong consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Cinder painter (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Australian federal election

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

Another editor recently created this article which I promptly moved to Draft:Next Australian federal election as WP:TOOSOON. That article was then submitted to WP:AFC with the reviewer also determining it was WP:TOOSOON (refer to Special:Diff/1289245425). This article has now been created and it is obviously still WP:TOOSOON. The previous federal election has bairly concluded and the Australian Electoral Commission has not declared all seats (AFAIK). All we know is that there will be an election in the next three years, however not at what point. TarnishedPath^talk 01:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 01:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the easiest way to merge the histories of the draft and mainspace? The mainspace version is more developed now. GraziePrego (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if a histmerge is really a thing you do to two different articles which don't have any common starting point. If the mainspace version is more developed it's possible for us to delete the draft and then move the mainspace article to draft. TarnishedPath^talk 03:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if WP:TOOSOON is still determined then we can put this page back into draftspace. I figured that other elections such as the 2025 Canadian federal election did have its subsequent page created while results were being finalised. However, I am not opposed to whatever decision that everyone decides to go with. At the very least when we do create the page based on timeliness, the content is there and ready to go. GarbageKarate (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarbageKarate, There is another article in draftspace is the problem. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, Happy for this one to be deleted then if the one in draftspace can be amended to more current information if it makes things easier! GarbageKarate (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarbageKarate, if you were the only editor of the article I would suggest tagging it with {{Db-g7}} but unfortanetly it has now been edited a bit by two other editors. TarnishedPath^talk 01:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath, What would you suggest we do in this case? Should we wait for the discussion to run its course, and then let the article be deleted? Apologies — I wasn’t aware there was already a draft in draftspace at the time. GarbageKarate (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarbageKarate, I think we have to allow the discussion to run its course. Given the article has been edited by other editors, those editors may disagree with my assessment of WP:TOOSOON. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that it is too early to say Useful2 (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure of the draft issues or how to resolve the draft and this article. However I don't believe it is too soon. Although some seats have not been decided, many have been and enough so that ministers including the prime minister have already been sworn in by the governor general and the government has been chosen, and the main opposition selected too. Also some articles referring to the next election are now appearing Eg Ley 2028 Tax Policy 2028. MyacEight (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to the next election in passing is not the same as having WP:SIGCOV of the event. TarnishedPath^talk 07:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article will be needed anyway, and it is factual to suggest that a combined lower house and upper house election will need to take place by May 2028. Furthermore, the background section is a description of events that have already happened (such as the leadership elections) and is sufficient for the background of the next election. As for what to do with the draft article, I suggest just redirecting it to the main article, with an edit summary in the main article linking to the draft article for attribution. The main article is already more detailed than the draft article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GarbageKarate: For future reference, please please please please check if there is a space in draftspace before creating an article. There would have been a banner that says there is an article in draftspace. It may be unfair for editors of the draft article to be ignored as their contributions and edit histories cannot be easily merged. Marcnut1996 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point to note. I'll keep this in mind, thanks @Marcnut1996! GarbageKarate (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: usually whenever the election is over we make an article for the next one. These discussions happen all the time and they end up resulting in keeping the article. Schestos (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The next election will happen, there’s no great wrong done by having this article already exist. We will inevitably end up remaking it very soon if deleted; as soon as the first opinion poll goes out, we will need to make Opinion polling for the next Australian federal election, and this article will end up being recreated. Currently, it provides value and information by laying out what it would look like if an election happened now, and also the date range where the next election can be called. GraziePrego (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The next election will happen in the next 3 years, and there is no harm with this article already existing. Also whenever the election is over a new one is created fir a new one, such as has happened for both the Next Canadian federal election and Next United Kingdom general election, where both elections will take place after this Next Australian federal election. JMajor14 (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article will be needed, and converting it into a redirect works when we know what year the election will be in. And redirects are also WP:CHEAP. It also works for editing history so editors can know about the changing of names when we know what year it will happen. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been debated time and time again, apparently doesn't stop people from filing bogus deletion discussions. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF? Don't think the snark is needed. GraziePrego (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: It's standard to have an article of this format as soon as the previous election has completed. Can editors please stop being so trigger happy on draft-moving/deletion of articles. -- Chuq (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good place to keep track of opinion polls and any other important information about the upcoming election. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 09:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know why there's no issue's with these kinds of pages for other countries, but people always want to delete the Australian ones. Viatori (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Keep - deleting makes a messy conversation about when the page should come in, and getting it up to a good standard quality is already hard enough with the campaign, let alone creating the page. The Voivodeship King (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm an outsider, but, nonetheless, I'll personally support us Keeping the article. As others have mentioned, Wikipedia has a tradition of documenting information for upcoming election (even if they are five years away), which I think serves the platform's purpose well. Additionally, there have already been some key developments, relating to the next election, like the Liberal-National split. Again, in my opinion, we should keep it. Daminb 11:51, 20 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 Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milkessa Chalchisa

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

Declined prod. The 2 added sources [30] and [31] are not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Ethiopia. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I improved the article with several additional sources just before it was nominated. Considering we know the athlete qualified for the Olympics for Ethiopia – a country for which we have no access to their 1980s daily newspaper archives – it's reasonable to assume that coverage exists for this subject, but simply isn't accessible to us right now. Per WP:N, notability is always determined by the existence of coverage, and never by its presence or lack of presence in an article. I agree that SIGCOV is needed, but subject was the only athlete in any throwing discipline to qualify for Ethiopia, so this coverage is guaranteed to exist in Ethiopian sources as soon as we can access them. --Habst (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so this coverage is guaranteed , absolutely false. Coverage is only guaranteed when we can verify its existence. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly right. This is by my count at least the 19th time that Habst has been reminded that WP:NEXIST doesn't work this way. I've also got to say that the practise amongst some participants on sports bio AFDs of repeatedly !voting to keep without making a bolded !vote, apparently to avoid bad AFD stats, is also not going un-noticed.

The grand total of coverage added by Habst is: "In the javelin throw, Milikesa Chalchisa placed 18th with a throw of 51.04m, and in the 20km race". Not significant coverage. Fails WP:NSPORT, Delete or Redirect. FOARP (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. This is at least the 58th time that a related article has been nominated recently and not resulted in a delete decision -- not even including the 100+ PRODs that were removed before they could get to AfD. I think there is some fundamental misunderstanding here about how AfD works -- it is never a WP:VOTE, it is a discussion about P&G which would be much more important than the decision on any individual case anyways. That's why I sometimes don't make bolded !votes, never because of AfD stats that will always be technically inaccurate and almost always be misunderstood. Also, I am not sure where your quoted sentence is coming from because I never added that to to the article. I added five third-party sources, so if you're quoting from only one of them that's isn't a representative sample in a case where I admit that SIGCOV has not been found yet. --Habst (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" not resulted in a delete decision" - You realise "redirect" is also a non-Keep outcome, right? And most of these sports bio discussions are closing with that outcome or deletion? And that where the close is keep it's typically because SIGCOV has actually been found?

Persistently re-running the same failed argument over and over in an effort to wear people down is bludgeoning and failing to get the point. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, a delete outcome isn't the same as a redirect outcome because redirects preserve page history, so that articles can be restored when SIGCOV is found. I agree that bludgeoning is a major issue in these discussions and have always tried to only cite relevant P&G and not reply to others' !votes. With regard to your last point, I greatly appreciate your contributions here and have always kept it to the P&G substance without making personal comments. If you have disagreements about the application of WP:N, you are free to make those points without making personal arguments. Where has WP:N or my application of it ever been a "failed" argument? --Habst (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have, as shown by JoelleJay in a previous discussion, run the same WP:NEXIST argument 20+ times (including subsequent times that I have witnessed), and at every instance had it pointed out to you that NEXIST is not a basis for keeping an article without any IRS SIGCOV sourcing being shown to exist (not merely indicated as potentially existing). Liz also pointed this out to you.

After a certain number of times - and 20 or more times is certainly beyond that - simply continuing to repeat this failed argument is bludgeoning and WP:IDHT. FOARP (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, I agree with User:Liz's comment that we should find sources that exist now without only relying on hypotheticals. There have also been several admins that have agreed with the keep argument, which is why the recent series of mass naominations has been controversial. At what point does making over 58 recent AfDs per above where the outcome was against what the nominator asked for become a "failed" argument? --Habst (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"where the outcome was against what the nominator asked for" - Redirection is not keeping, as has also been pointed out numerous times. FOARP (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. Redirection differs from deletion in a key way, which is that the history of the page is preserved so that it can be recreated into an article once SIGCOV is found. --Habst (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course nothing on Wikipedia is ever actually deleted. A deleted page merely has the history hidden, and can also be restored on request. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it all comes down to degree of difficulty. Improving an existing article is easier than converting back a redirect, which itself is easier than doing a WP:REFUND especially for newer editors. --Habst (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP the practise amongst some participants on sports bio AFDs of repeatedly !voting to keep without making a bolded !vote, apparently to avoid bad AFD stats, is also not going un-noticed. So that explains why, when collecting the list of examples you mentioned below, I had memory of WAY more instances of AfDs where I've interacted with Habst or seen them (and then declined to !vote myself due to anticipation of a timesink) than were coming up on AfDstats... Looking over the non-captured !votes, not including the 9 currently open, I see participation in another 45+ AfDs, only 26% of which matched the close outcome.
That said, I don't think Habst is intentionally disguising their !votes. It seems like they're just not picked up by @Ahecht's script if there is a space between the indent * and the bolded !vote. JoelleJay (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is directly about me, I sometimes don't participate in AfDs where I know what the outcome will be after making my edits, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim Bok-seok. So if you were to count those as keep !votes, the stats would show a higher percentage of agreement. More importantly, there are broader problems with the principle in general of frequently using AfD statistics; see Wikipedia:AfD stats don't measure what you think. --Habst (talk) 22:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics - No sources can be found, so there should be no article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethiopia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics where the athlete's name is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No IRS SIGCOV identified, and this exact NEXIST argument has by now accumulated dozens of AfDs directly rejecting it. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. per WP:CSK#1, nomination has been withdrawn Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sana Khan

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Since retiring from acting in 2020 and marrying Mufti Anas Sayed, Sana Khan has not received any independent & substantive coverage in reliable sources, with only minor attention arising from her occasional controversial statements. She does not remain notable in any way now. + Article is full of promotional gebbrish tone. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, Women, Film, Entertainment, Beauty pageants, Fashion, India, and Maharashtra. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: What a joke. The article is substantially sourced. So someone's prolific career of over 10 years and media coverage is eclipsed by their retirement? Kailash29792 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article sources largely consist of routine or promotional coverage, failing WP:GNG requirement for significant, independent sources. The promotional tone, especially in sections on her businesses and personal life, violates WP:NPROMO. A "speedy keep" vote doesn't address these issues. Regards Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Kailash. UnregisteredBiohazard (what i do • what did i do now?) 02:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Her notability now doesn't affect her past notability. Not that I have to teach you how to count, but she had lead roles in 9 films meeting WP:NACTOR: Silambattam, Thambikku Indha Ooru, Kalyanram Kathi, Payanam, Kool...Sakkath Hot Maga, Aayiram Vilakku, Mr. Nookayya, Climax and Wajah Tum Ho. P. S., she is the first billing of Climax. DareshMohan (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR requires “significant roles in multiple notable productions,” and the notability of the listed films (as you've quoted a list, Silambattam, Climax, Wajah Tum Ho) is questionable, as many are not established as notable on Enwiki (lacking their own articles or significant coverage). Climax (2013), despite her top billing, is a low-profile Malayalam film with limited independent coverage, as seen in [Ref 60, The New Indian Express, which is brief]. Roles in films like Wajah Tum Ho, a commercial failure [Ref 67, Bollywood Hungama], or Mr. Nookayya, where she played a glamorous supporting role [Ref 58, The Hindu], don’t demonstrate the sustained significance required. Chronos.Zx (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All these films meet notability as long as they have at least two reviews, per WP:NFILM. Silambattam especially. And Climax, a biopic of this late icon isn't "low profile". These articles are just not well developed but can be. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Hello, Chronos.Zx. You need to gain a better understanding of AfD before nominating multiple articles for deletion. Without this, your actions may be perceived as disruptive. Your reasoning does not align with AfD policy—please refer to WP:NOTTEMPORARY, which states that notability is not temporary.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She was not notable before 2020 also. The article has a promotional tone and appears to be the result of paid or overly glorifying edits. And if you're following me after this, then please stop. Chronos.Zx (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware that you had previously commented on the Bahishti Zewar debate. Sana Khan had been on my watchlist since she gained attention following her exit from Bollywood. I’m simply trying to clarify that her notability is not based on her marriage or related matters. She meets the criteria for notability under WP:ENTERTAINER.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 04:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: absolutely notable subject.

Afstromen (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: notable subject. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 11:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It seems that the nominator is joking, the subject is Notable. Taabii (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are several "speedy keep" votes, yet no one has addressed the concern I raised about the article promotional tone. Some of these votes even resemble the pattern seen in the Akash Ambani AfD, which raised suspicions of paid involvement. That said, I understand there's little I can do in this situation, so I'm withdrawing my nomination. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:59, 13 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.

[1] ttps://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/federal/2025/guide/calw

[1]