Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 20	May 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Rynek, Lesser Poland Voivodeship

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot. Name means simply "Market" (or "market square"). In reality, as the Polish article states, the map shows, and Teryt confirms, this is not a settlement but just a part (i.e., część, and not necessarily a populated part) of the village of Brzezówka. Happy to redirect as an ATD. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forever's End

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable artist. Primary sourced promotion lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Closest it gets is an interview with the director in a PRNEWSWIRE feed. No sign of any independent reviews, eg. Prod removed giving no helpful reason. (previous afd was for different subject) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Antonsen

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

Non notable filmmaker. WP:BLP1E, Got a little bit of feel good interview coverage (lacking independence) for being young but nothing sustained. Otherwise lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Smells like UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Alexander Boon

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

Autobiograpy of non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Previous PROD deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFone Flick Fest

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Independent Film Festival

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Movie Awards

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable award farm. Bombarded with name dropping but notability is not inherited. Bombarded with lots of primary sources but lack coverage about the actual award organisation. Prod removed because of incoming links but notability is not inherited from those who get one of their "awards". duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Film Carnival Singapore

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11th West Bengal Assembly

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

Obvious AI slop, see WP:AN/I discussion — The Anome (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10th West Bengal Assembly

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

Addition of obvious AI slop with hallucinated references, see WP:AN/I discussion — The Anome (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated Women and Youth Empowerment Centre

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

Fails all notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Kpg jhp jm 07:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cantabil

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

Not a notable manager and CEO. I don't see the sources to pass WP:Anybio. Cinder painter (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14th West Bengal Assembly

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

Addition of AI slop, see discussion on WP:AN/I — The Anome (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13th West Bengal Assembly

Apor Györgydeák

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

AI-generated article with fabricated citations about a world champion in an extremely niche sport (teqball). Most coverage I dug up was routine match reports like 1, 2, 3, and 4. The only decent coverage I found is an interview from a teqball-specific blog, which isn't terribly helpful for our purposes. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Greenlee

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

All I was able to find on this basketball player was this interview with the subject and this interview with his parents, which I don't believe warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Macedonia, Florida, and Minnesota. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12th West Bengal Assembly

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

AI-generated garbage. See first revision of page, check out the nonsensical citations. — The Anome (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Kpg jhp jm 07:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Lok Yun

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

Non-notable Thai coffee shop. No reliable sources that I could discern, and it would seem unlikely and would exist. Current sources include YouTube and blogs. Fails WP:N, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Thailand. Kpg jhp jm 07:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Kaneko

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

No usable sources (including ja:wiki) and no good claim to notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No valid redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinya Kato

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

No usable sources (including ja:wiki) and no good claim to notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No valid redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Chiba

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

No usable sources (including ja:wiki) and no good claim to notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No valid redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Gahunia

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

Bio article yet seems to advertising a restuarant. No indication of significance. Refs are woeful. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st West Bengal Legislature

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

I think this is notable but it should be blanked. There are no inline citations and man listed as speaker died before taking office. Also article was created by a blocked user Czarking0 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with all this editor's other article creations. This appears to be AI slop. See the current WP:AN/I discussion, and their own comment admitting their use of AI here: [1] — The Anome (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Kpg jhp jm 07:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keka HR

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found modest but sufficiently non-trivial, event-focused coverage in Telangana Today, IndianWeb2 (a local news site), and others like The Economic Times. They give not so bad third-party coverage that makes it possible to publish a page using only independent sources. Also, there are some quotes from the company's management which are not helpful, but they do not dominate the coverage. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marthe De Pillecyn (K3)

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

No indication of standalone notability outside band. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold F. Pryor

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

Subject clearly fails WP:NPOL. From GNG perspective, the sources either fail one or two of the three criteria. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This fails WP:SIGCOV. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This is probably substantial but fails WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:IRS. Others happen to be WP:ROUTINE. Hence, GNG is not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Kpg jhp jm 07:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a local politician, there's no presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and WP:ROUTINE local coverage of election activity does not count as WP:SIGCOV toward WP:GNG. I concur with VWF's source analysis here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFL Community Shield

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

Uncourced, non notable Mn1548 (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Kpg jhp jm 07:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tannery Garden, Basirhat

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

WP:GEOLAND only presumes notability for the legally recognized city of Basirhat, not the informally defined Tannery Garden neighborhood. Citing the Bharat Sevashram Sangha website's listing of its address cannot support the claim that the area is famous for that group's presence. Listing the post office pin code does not establish notability because all sufficiently small areas have a single postal code. The Basirhat Police website failed to load, but it seems to only establish the neighborhood's existence, rather than providing significant coverage of the neighborhood as a distinct entity. The claimed 2025 population and literacy rate are made without citation, which is particularly confusing because the 2025 census of India remains indefinitely postponed, while the 2011 census of India only measured Basirhat as a whole, not at the neighborhood level. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 05:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate crinkle

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

I came across this page yesterday refbombed with recipe blogs. I looked for better sources to replace them and could only find two sources with sigcov: Metroscene mag and Field Guide to Cookies. I've since looked closer at Metroscene Mag and see they identify as a blog, leaving only one source contributing to GNG.
ATDs: (1) Redirect to Filipino cuisine where they are mentioned. An expansion would give undue weight, they do not appear particularly important to Filipino cuisine. (2) Merge to Filipino-American cuisine: I disapprove of this. The article is currently scoped to Filipino food in America (i.e. food of Filipino Americans) and would be out of scope. (3) Redirect to list of cookies: Oppose a merge as the criteria for inclusion is implicitly "meets GNG". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Compensation Insurance

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

There are no references at all to this insurance-related industry-funded company in Florida. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [2][3][4][5][6][7] (Primary, non independent source), [8][9][10][11][12][13]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AnonymousScholar49 is correct, that there exist some good sources that someone could add to the article, e.g. US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Insurance Journal are legit. As for this being a non-profit, I don't know about that. It is described as "a U.S. insurance rating and data collection bureau specializing in workers' compensation. Operating with a not-for-profit philosophy and owned by its member insurers...". I'm not sure why this is important but merely responding to Anon.--FeralOink (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY, I’ve cleaned up the article and added WP:RS sources from the U.S. Department of Labor, Reuters, and Insurance Journal (2). Promotional and unsourced content has been removed or, where appropriate, clearly tagged. The article now meets WP:THREE and satisfies notability under WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

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

Non-notable academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Social science, and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no indication of notability and can't find a suitable target for a merge/redirect. I considered whether the article could be rescoped to be about the Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage, only initial news reports and then the follow up news report when the driver died. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Spain. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been sustained coverage in reliable sources in late 2016 [14], 2017 [15], 2018 [16], 2019 [17], 2021 [18], 2023 [19][20][21][22]. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2016 is breaking news about closing the case, 2017 and 2018 are breaking news about reopening the case, 2019 is breaking news about reclosing the case, 2021 is breaking news about a memorial (but also has significant coverage of the crash itself), the 2023 sources are about the driver's death and the subsequent end of the case, and 2021 (which you listed as 2023) is breaking news about a memorial. The 2021 source is promising, but I'd hope for at least one source that actually demonstrated that it's notable in its own right as opposed to contemporary coverage over a long period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one in 2021 provides non-breaking news in-depth coverage, as you already noticed, and that is sustained coverage:
Costantini, Luca (19 March 2021). "El 'caso Freginals', cinco años de parálisis judicial y con los familiares indignados". Vozpópuli (in Spanish).
The forensic analysis of the case has been published in the Spanish legal medicine journal, which is effectively a primary source, but also an indication of it not being a routine event:
Cabús, Rosa Maria (2023). "Intervención forense en el accidente de autobús con 13 víctimas mortales en Freginals, Tarragona, España". Revista Española de Medicina Legal (in Spanish). 49 (2): 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.reml.2023.03.001.
MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple WP:RS found.Sigma World (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this single event merits its own page. Does not have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, it has follow ups on opening/closing of case, but I don't think they establsih notability of the event. Which makes me think it is also not that notable. Based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA, seems to fall under routine news. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A specific analysis of available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international coverage over several years by reliable sources

Czarking0 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A statement like "international coverage over several years by reliable sources" doesn't come anywhere close to an analysis of sources. Editors arguing to Keep an article have to put in compelling, specific arguments on exact sources that provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pisgah, Indiana

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

There's nothing there, and sources consistently characterize this as a post office. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However it is not clear to me if this is legally recognized according to WP:GEOLAND which is what my argument is based on. Czarking0 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go read WP:GNIS. We have not taken listing in these official gazetteers for a long time, and in any case, GNIS in particular has proven to be vairly error-prone. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: weak keep - might have historical significance. e.g. see this [[23]] Asteramellus (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The story is at least untrue to the extent that this Mt. Pisgah is nowhere near the military base; it's over 150 miles away in a different corner of the state. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this ever was a community in the sense required by GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was more than a post office at Mt. Pisgah. According to Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, April 9, 1921 Page 6 there was a general mercantile store there that sold coffee for the desperate. It is mentioned as a "place" in Hoosier Folklore Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jun., 1943), pp. 14-16. ([24]). So there's a hint that there's more than a post office, but evidence is shy that it was a community. Maddening. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The comment I'm left with as a closer is "So there's a hint that there's more than a post office, but evidence is shy that it was a community"...so where doesn't that leave us as a consensus of editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Halocene

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, the substance of the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halocene do not appear to have been addressed by this new draft and merger. Since the decision is two years old, a new consensus may be helpful. Bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Television, United States of America, and Arizona. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saw this earlier but was going to let the dust settle a day prior to bringing to AfD. Page created despite draft being declined multiple times. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy (effectively endorsing the closure of the first AfD). Now that I've the energy to sit and do WP:BEFORE search, I've found mostly press releases or routine announcements, some of which are cited in the article itself. Many of the in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources are about the plagiarism accusations. I had done the merge because a patroller (?) found Halocene (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and requested a pageswap with the base page name. I thought it better to keep the extensive page history at plain old Halocene, especially since (band) only has my merge, the patroller's addition of a short description and hatnote, and the recreator's writing. (For transparency, nominator notified me about this AfD on my user talk.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with aggregating the history together in the event Halocene becomes notable and have no issue with any of your actions here @Rotideypoc41352. I also notified the creator of the new article so that you were both aware since the script "saw" the creator as the the one who created the article deleted in 2023. I'm guessing the history was somewhere as this is a remarkable first edit even assuming Rledder had been active as an IP before registering for easy creation. Star Mississippi 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just didn't want the potential contradiction between my initial actions (removing the redirect) and my comment here [to restore it] to confuse the closer or anyone else looking into this AfD, so I thought I would clarify that the merge was more about attribution and page history than about notability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect with history in tact to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. I created this in good-faith but for some reason a promotional version was restored - I've removed unsourced and promotional content. Halocene has received coverage beyond The Masked Singer controversy, coverage dates back to 2011 when Phoenix New Times covered it ([25]). Two state-level publications have covered it including Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic and meets WP:SIGCOV thresold. Phoenix New Times covered it in-depth in 2011, 2017, and 2020. Rock Sound covered it in 2023. None of these sources were provided by editors in the previous draft or deletion discussion. There are more references in music magazines as well and should be kept. Rledder (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cleaning up the article and for leaving a detailed comment here. I see what I consider to be an acceptable variability in judgment on which sources show the band meets GNG (or WP:NBAND). The first two [external] links are to the same source (explaining for closer's convenience)—and it is an interview, which is not independent of the subject and doesn't help determine if they meet GNG. I have no firm opinion on the 2017 PNT article; the 2020 one does meet the WP:SIRS criteria. I read the 2023 Rock Sound piece as a routine announcement (of a new release) and thus not significant coverage of the band (and maybe not even for the single itself, tangentially). Returning to the topic at hand, I do not know if we have had consensus that two sources shows that this subject meets GNG. As nominator said, this discussion will hopefully clarify that and the evaluation for notability purposes of the sources we can find. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying for closer that WP:SIRS in my reply above simply refers to the bullet points under WP:GNG: secondary sources independent of the subject, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band passes WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. As it currently stands, with two articles that meet WP:SIRS criteria, it passes that test. While I see merit in the redirect option, a read into the band's article and the sources linked suggests that while the controversy surrounding The Masked Singer did play a major factor, their notability is not solely derived from that incident.

(also a minor declaration that I was the one who happened to patrol the article as Rotideypoc mentioned) Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the sources which you feel show it passes GNG/NBAND? Also, how does SIRS apply as that is a company guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIRS does apply to the source materials, which shows a likely level of notability associated with the subject. In this case, having at least one quoted article in 2019 coming from The Arizona Republic - the most widely circulated newspaper in Arizona - infers a presumable notability that goes statewide.

In addition to The Masked Singer controversy article(s), one of which was the aforementioned quoted article, the 2020 Phoenix New Times article @Rledder mentioned earlier in the discussion states that the band has taken what was back in 2020 considered a lesser-adopted approach to Twitch as a platform, and are recognized by the streaming platform for it. That in itself merits independent notability from The Masked Singer, and a degree of notability that is non-trivial. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but SIRS has NO application for this page. It is a subject specific notability guideline dealing with companies, not musicians and/or bands. You have also failed to cite the requested sources that show notability under GNG or NBAND. Do you have those available for the discussion? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede on the SIRS part as this may have been my misunderstanding on how it's applied in sources. As to the requested sources: The Arizona Republic article (reference 9), as well as the PNT article in question (reference 4). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for conceding. The AP article is paywalled but I am assuming it was prior to 2023? I should have specified that I am looking for sources showing notability since the last deletion discussion where it was found they were not notable. We are not here to relitigate the previous AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here and, in some parts of the discussion, not even agreement on acceptable standards for sources. I think a bit more discussion will help and maybe a bit more editor participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Kreuser

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Sources cited are several database entries, a paid publicity announcement, and a single local news announcement of a transfer. News search turns up a few mentions of his name in lists of players, but no in-depth coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Minnesota, and North Dakota. — Moriwen (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is better known as “Rocky Kreuser” in the USA. When you search that, looks borderline keep/delete so will do a thorough review later. Rikster2 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage/notability. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of Edna Leslie

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

I did my WP:BEFORE and found that it does not meet both WP:RS and WP:N. It is a silent film with almost no reliable sources, not worthy of Wikipedia DankPedia (talk) 19:02, 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that the film was released in 1910, sourcing is understandably sparse. I added a link to this title on Turner Classic Movies. The old silent films are difficult to source. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC) - Well, I just found a link to the The Meridian Morning Record of October 24, 1910 that reviewed the film. Hope this helps. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found some additional ones in Newspapers.com - they're short and some of them are of course posted in multiple places, but they're there. ([26], [27]) I'd like some more in-depth content though, if possible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

California Cup Juvenile Fillies Stakes

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

Non notable horse race with limited reliable sources. The only ones were data sheets from the race, no notable coverage in the press. DankPedia (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Horse racing, and California. DankPedia (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleving Group

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

Fails WP:NORG - no indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability supported by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and google does not show sources

Czarking0 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kin'unken

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

I did my WP:BEFORE and am nominating it for deletion under the grounds of WP:N. It could barely find any sources in Japanese, and none in English. DankPedia (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. DankPedia (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's your assessment of the Japanese sources you found? MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Schlesinger

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

nn musicial. Tagged for notability for 10 years already. Music on self label. Sources I see only interviews (maybe I am lazy, but failed to find independent coverage). --Altenmann >talk 03:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant notability/coverage in media. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hughes

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite holding a faculty position and receiving an award, there is no significant coverage of Nigel Hughes in independent sources. The article relies mostly on university-hosted professional profiles, I could not find substantial third-party sources and article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Archaeology, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep per WP:NPROF. He passes WP:NPROF#1 due to a high citation count in a low citation field with an h-index of 39 per Scopus and more than 10 publications with 100+ citations per Google Scholar. The award he received is a strong argument that he likely also passes WP:NPROF#2. Both of these are way beyond what is usually required in AfD to keep an article of an academic. Since we can apply NPROF, we do not have to consider GNG and after establishing notability, we can use professional profiles to write an article per NPROF and substantial coverage in third party sources is not required. It seems the nominator has not done a substantial WP:BEFORE and evaluation per WP:NPROF before nomination. --hroest 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide those links to verify your claim, so I can reconsider my AfD nomination? Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Has honors. --Altenmann >talk 03:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to note for the record that the first nomination was for a different Nigel Hughes. (This seemed apparent from the nominations themselves, but the logs preserved the first bit of both articles' wikitext, and they clearly reflect two different birthdates of two different people.) No opinion on the current article on the current subject. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Esperanto Union

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage independent of the subject. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Organizations. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'del no see indepth indep covge. --Altenmann >talk 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Reisz

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Hungary, and Romania. Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. I see 13 sources listed in this article, seven on which appear to be reliable web sites or news sources in Hungarian and German. I'm curious exactly where the nominator searched in a WP:BEFORE. Were non-English language articles searched? Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding much significant coverage of the player in reliable sources. Significant coverage is only in a hockey blog. There is certainly difficulty in searching Hungarian sources, but thus far my search has been unsuccessful.

Here is a quick assessment of the sources in the article (note: I am relying on google translate for these). Not sure if this will change your mind @Flibirigit:

1,4,8,10,11,12 are from a hockey blog and are not reliable

2: About national team, not player. Reisz only mentioned in roster list.

3: Only appears in roster list

5: Routine game coverage mentioning Reisz goal

6: Routine game coverage that mentions Reisz

7: Page not found

9: Behind paywall; most likely source for establishing notability

13: Only appears in roster list

Given there is only one potentially reliable, in-depth source this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient media presence for a socialite, akin to Kardashians, "notable for being notable". --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kruse (surgeon)

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

Unnotable bio that fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Not sourced by any reliable sources and none could be found during WP:BEFORE. The first and last references state that they are WP:SPONSORED content, and the other two references are nothing more than directory listings. Was successfully PRODded once before, but the page creator requested its undeletion, but no new references or evidence of notability are available. Since it has been undeleted per the page creators request, coming here instead of WP:DRAFTIFYing. cyberdog958^Talk 01:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and Texas. cyberdog958^Talk 01:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources are routine doctor's profiles and a sponsored advert. --Altenmann >talk 03:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The person does not appear to have notable recognition. I could not find significant mentions in the press. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Because it's "Not ready for main space". If it's not moved, it should be deleted as a badly-formatted and ill-cited mess of original research and speculative fiction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telegantic Megavision

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DankPods

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

I'm not seeing how this YouTuber meets notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NENTERTAINER. The sourcing is very weak, mostly to blogs or blog-like sources or to user-submitted content. The tone is promotional and the article contains quite a bit of non-encyclopedic trivia such as the name of their pet snake and their collection of Pokemon cards. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Technology, Internet, and Australia. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Do you consider The Verge to be a reliable sources? And as per WP policies primary sources can be used for citing basic facts.

I believe you misread the article, the article does not talk about his collection of Pokémon cards, it says how he makes Pokémon like cards for each of the cars he reviews

if you don’t like the part about his snake, delete it DankPedia (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DankPedia, do you have a relationship with DankPods? LibStar (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. DankPedia (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar name though. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created the DankPods article and your user name coincidentally is User:DankPedia??? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the logs, this was a renaming. I do not have any personal connection with DankPods, nor have I ever met the guy in person. DankPedia (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I sympathize with the nom, I took a BOLD edit to this and I think GNG is met. I removed some of the more PROMO content Czarking0 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep''' I agree. This article should be kept. It goes, while not in depth, into facts about dankpods that should be on wikipedia. Also, we can always edit this article to make it more suitable than it already is. IIEcolor (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, I did change the wording a bit, instead of saying he "attracted" 1.2 million followers I said he has 1.2 million subscribers

This will help with WP:NPOV, which I feel this article satisfies DankPedia (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Czarking0's edits satisfies NPOV and there are quite a few sources showing notability 174.193.137.171 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I'm going to say that the Sydney Morning Herald and The Verge sources barely push this over the line of notability. The other's I'm not convinced of their reliability or depth of coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Days' War

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

Note tag. Supposed to be historical fact but can't verify it as no page numbers. No indication of significance. Unable to verify it in gbooks, refseek, internet archive. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the deletion. The event however do exist but the source for it is very lacking and the original article mostly just anti communist fantasy. I've edited it to make it more neutral but still, proper academic source such as university research is hard to find. Dauzlee (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dauzlee: That is the core of it. Normally I wouldnt' sent such an article to Afd. In fact I don't think I've done that before and probably wont do it again. I spent close 4 hours back and forward while I was working in the garden on Sunday and couldn't find a thing on it of worth. I must have looked at it about 8 times and couldnt determine if it was valid or not. I don't think it was a war, more like a massacre or an action but either way I could verify it. I searched for an alternate name perhaps from the opposing side and couldn't find anything there either. scope_creep^Talk 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if this is hard to find coverage for, then it may better to find a page to merge or redirect rather than delete. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no arguments and both a Merge and Redirect were suggested but without target article suggestions. I'd like to ask User:Wcquidditch if they could deletion sort this AFD for Military History, too. One skill I have yet to master here. Thanks in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that there is no deletion sorting page for "military history", just the separate ones for military and history. It was already sorted under "history" (by someone else) relatively quickly, but when I first sorted this I'm not sure how I missed that it hadn't been placed under "military" yet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYRG

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

Procedural AfD following WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 5#DYRG. Duckmather (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Duckmather (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 124.104.16.92 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has been blocked for disruption. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this short page has a complicated recent history and I don't believe it is eligible for a Soft Deletion especially as an editor involved and who cast a "vote" here has been blocked. Can we get some more arguments here? This article was BLAR'd and objected to so Redirection is another option besides Keep and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably the 10th radio or TV station I have seen at AfD this month. Is there any wider effort to address this ?

Czarking0 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyomevotu Obada

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

WP:ROTM businessperson., Fails WP:BIO. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also checked BBC nothing notable
Czarking0 (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]