Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 02	May 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 10:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hōnen Shōnin 25 Sacred Sites Pilgrimage

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

Contested prod with improvement. Currently, not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG as well as not enough sourcing to pass WP:VERIFY. Searches turned up zero in-depth sourcing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. It does not meet the WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 16:14, 3 May 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 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BF Borgers

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

Contested prod without explanation or improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Finance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 26 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 23:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, coverage is really about the fraud allegations and stuff, not sufficient for NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage centres around the fraud so it really is coverage about one event essentially. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 9 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 00:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page; already handled by the hatnote at Military brat; the "see also" entry is present there as well. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Disambiguations. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 23:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. hinnk (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --hroest 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that WP:ONEOTHER is sufficient rationale to justify deleting this particular page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk)
Delete: WP:ONEOTHER. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:24, 10 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 00:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Rettig

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

Non notable politician, never elected to office, somewhat known as part of a TV show but not notable as a result. Bedivere (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Have enough WP:SIGCOV (see es.wiki). Svartner (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Rettig passes WP:GNG by receiving enough press coverage for the criminal cases in which he has been a plaintiff or analyst. A clear example of this, although in a different legal field, is the case of attorney Camille Vasquez, who has also represented television personalities like Johnny Depp. Carigval.97 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously what does Vasquez have to do with Rettig? Bedivere (talk) 05:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasquez and Rettig passes WP:GNG by receiving press coverage about their professions and public cases. That is their argumentative relationship (specifically, enough notability). Carigval.97 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be WP:SIGCOV here from a multitude of sources. There seems to be sufficient RSes here and the content is notable. All of this should warrant inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not notably a political person, but is notable as a pundit and attorney. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as an attorney, though not as a politician. Sources are enough to meet GNG. ApexParagon (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash (2015)

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

One of the sources is duplicated, that means 3 sources support the article, and the 4th source quite literally does not state what is said. This article is not notable enough. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by multiple reliable sources, including Human Rights Watch, Iraq Body Count, and ReliefWeb, all of which cover the Tuz Khurmatu hospital clash. The fact that one source is listed twice doesn’t change the reliability of the information. This event is significant and has been reported by independent sources. Deleting the article over this issue is not justified. DataNomad (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2/4 of your citations should be on this page, and 2 is too little. Furthermore, this is an incredibly insignificant clash which could easily be included somewhere else. Setergh (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't appear to meet WP:NEVENT guidelines for sustained or in-depth coverage in multiple sources. I don't see why this is notable. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Support per nom.
R3YBOl (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom.Sigma World (talk) 20:32, 10 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 and redirect‎ to Bendy and the Ink Machine#Plot. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bendy (character)

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

Article does not assert notability and is cited to unreliable sources. Attempts were made to redirect it, but they were reverted under the logic that it was featured on a different language Wikipedia, which is not a valid argument to keep an article. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. λ NegativeMP1 21:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bendy and the Ink Machine#Plot. ApexParagon (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - viable search term, but I can't find anything that establishes independent notability. If its somehow kept, the whole article would need a good WP:TNT. (Its strangely organized and written, its "Controversy" section both violates WP:CSECTION and has no discernable "controversy", etc etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV standards, but there is good WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I think that redirecting to Bendy and the Ink Machine#Plot makes the most sense here. I think the character fails to meet the notability guidelines on its own but in the context of the wider game, it makes sense to include it. It is not notable enough on its own but the game is certainly notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 West Sussex County Council election

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

It's too soon to know if there even will be County Council elections for West Sussex, since there's a massive reorganization going on. A draft exists if this election comes to pass. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and too soon. Lots of newly created 2026 council elections that would be better stored as drafts until coverage comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources available, and there isn't even certainty of the event going to happen. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is definitely WP:TOOSOON. It lacks WP:SIGCOV and therefore it is not ripe enough for inclusion. I am sure that as we get closer, coverage will be done on this event but for now, there is not even one RS on the page to bolster inclusion at this point. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Great Lakes Avengers. asilvering (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper (character)

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

A minor comic book character who has literally no SIGCOV, only being referenced in Valnet sources. There is no possible notability I can find for this character, as a search yields nothing else. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: G in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Great Lakes Avengers, as all of them are members of that group, per the page, or List of Marvel Comics characters: G. As only one of them has lasted more than one issue, SIGCOV seems impossible to achieve. Definitely don't merge with a list of DC characters as they're from Marvel. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That typo has been corrected. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Apologies if I seemed passive-aggressive; just wanted to be explicit. Thanks for the fix. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Lakes Avengers - Group of joke characters that only appeared in a handful of actual issues, and has zero significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Merging does not seem necessary as the characters' extremely minimal plot is already fully covered throughout the main GLA article, so a simple Redirect would suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per all. This doesn't meet the standard of WP:SIGCOV without more quality sources. But there is a valid redirect target, and editors can figure out what is reliable enough to WP:PRESERVE at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Great Lakes Avengers: As far as can be reasonably ascertained, these characters have not been meaningfully discussed by any reliable sources at all. However, they are briefly discussed in the main article on their fictional group. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 07:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Harlev Petersen

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Henrik Harlev Petersen only competed in one world wheelchair curling championship in 2002 as alternate and finished in last place. CurlingEnthusiast (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark. User:CurlingEnthusiast (talk) 20:54, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wheelchair curling. — Maile (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: my search found no evidence of notability. I'm baffled by the suggestion of merging to Wheelchair curling; there is nothing about Petersen that would come close to being due weight in that article. He's mentioned in various articles about individual competitions, but no single one would be an appropriate redirect target, and the recent enthusiasm about navpages seems to have waned. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge Precision Ltd

AfDs for this article:

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this company is clearly notable (the awards such as this are independent and significant) and the article is detailed and thorough. The problem here is it looks too promotional and should get an NPOV tag instead of deletion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an award is unfortunately not significant coverage, it does not address the subject of an article significantly and in detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a firm about which a previous instance was deleted 3 years ago. Since then, the firm has received the award mentioned in the article and above: the firm was one of 6 recipients in Cambridgeshire alone that year ([1]) - gratifying for those firms but not inherently notable here. Nor is the sponsorship of local awards, which falls under WP:CORPTRIV, as does the site opening. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the reasoning above and the references fail NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 9 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafaela Pimenta

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

Fails in WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEVENT, since it is only about the lawyer who inherited the fortune and business of the late agent Mino Raiola. Svartner (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Women, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources present in article which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that all sources cover a single event, with no notability beyond the Raiola's death event. Svartner (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the single event you mention? There's coverage about her in several sources, at different times, and related to different events. MarioGom (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable figure and pioneer. Also, a quick search shows she has sources from many different years idk what ur on about... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person definitely seems notable. They have coverage from the Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph and the content is notable as well. It should remain included on here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's unclear what the single event referred to in the nomination. There's coverage all over sports press, from different times, related to different events. MarioGom (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarioGom. There is SIGCOV beyond a single event in reliable and independent sources that are (mostly) secondary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:07, 10 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 00:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grace College of Business and Computer Science

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

Fails WP:NORG tagged for notability for 5 years, created by a sock. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Computing, and Ethiopia. Theroadislong (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete no coverage in WP:RS, does not pass WP:NSCHOOL. It is not even clear if it still exists, the website is not reachable. --hroest 19:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) JTZegers (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Nebraska gubernatorial election

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

This article doesn’t have enough reliable sources focusing on the subject and thus it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election also shows that other Wikipedians thing strong sourcing is needed for an election article. 2600:387:15:5111:0:0:0:9 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not only because sources will exist, but current sources show some coverage of this election, beyond just WP:ROUTINE. Vermont is different, since that draft was declined as none of those sources relate to the actual election, just governor popularity. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because eventually there will be enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm wondering if the nominator did a WP:BEFORE search; I find it highly unlikely that there are zero sources in existence for an article about an election. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found [2] and [3]. Not THAT much but still non-routine coverage that seems significant Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found only this - granted it’s stronger then the coverage of the Vermont election, but it seems most sources aren’t talking about this election in depth yet. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am the same as the nominator IP, this dynamic IP stuff is annoying. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much doubt that this election will get coverage, even if it's not there yet. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that still seems like TOOSOON, doesn’t it? That’s why Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election got declined. Wikipedia can wait for their to be better sourcing. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of JTZegers. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of this article (and other similar ones), there are numerous articles specifically about this election. I won’t lie and say it’s strong, but unlike the one in Vermont (which keeps getting brought up), about half the articles focus on Nebraska. The references for the Vermont article only have a footnote about the Vermont elections. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough coverage and sources. Notable enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this election has, much to my chagrin, already started, as shown by significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There does seem to be sufficient coverage and sources to be considered notable RE WP:SIGCOV, the arguments about it being WP:TOOSOON would only be the case if there were no sources to show that it was notable which is not the case here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live Earth concert, Washington, D.C.

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

Cannot find any reliable secondary sources that cover this concert. (The 2 sources listed in the article are both primary) ApexParagon (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seemingly non-notable campaign event without WP:LASTING coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JSON Resume

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sourced almost exclusively to primary sources; additional searching found blog posts but no coverage in reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in RS Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources, and not notable enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should not be included. It fails to include notable, secondary RSes, instead it relies exclusively on primary sources. If every open source project had a page, there is no knowing how many pages could be made. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:RS. FULLY RELIES ON PRIMARY SOURCES. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blog posts and package manager listings. Couldn't find any WP:RS. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:05, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some blog post here and there, but does not meet WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 11:51, 10 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SNARF (acronym)

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY as a non-notable WP:NEO. Does not appear to have caught on past its initial coinage and reporting. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Internet. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland, Indiana

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

No other sign of a town here, so as the source says, probably just a station stop with a post office. Mangoe (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of official settlement Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a similar situation to what happened to Joppa, but here there's no proof that the town existed at all, other than as a railroad stop. Seems that this article was a WP:BADIDEA from the get-go; just because there are records doesn't mean it's notable. JTZegers (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at surrounding towns you can tell this isn't really a 'settlement'. Rutland consists of a couple of farmhouses at a railroad xing; contrast this with Hibbard, Indiana and Burr Oak, Indiana just up the railroad; they are tiny but clearly settlements, having a couple of streets and businesses.

128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. The ones listed in the article are very weak. Probably just a post box. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, this seems like something that should warrant its own page but due to WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, is not something that seems to warrant inclusion according to the rules. If someone can find more sources to support inclusion, please let me know. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no proof of town existing. Thus WP:GNG and WP:MADEUP. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No consensus for deletion, and none likely to arise. asilvering (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PULSAR: Lost Colony

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

Game appears to fail WP:GNG, with the only two publications that are reliable and covered it being Rock Paper Shotgun and The Games Machine, therefore causing it to fall just short of the typical threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Eurogamer mentioned them too in an article and they're on the reliable list. I know Game Rant isn't on that list, but they covered them 2 weeks ago and appear to be an decent publication. I think the article just needs to be updated, and I have no issue with doing that. Bobtinin (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the link to Eurogamer to confirm whether it is WP:SIGCOV? Game Rant does not count towards notability, per WP:VG/S. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Mentioned in passing as having accepted by Steam Greenlight. MimirIsSmart (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Game Rant is fine for topics "of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information", which a mundane space game falls under. Cortador (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also found a GotY list on Giant Bomb that talks about the game to a significant degree, though am not sure if taken together this is enough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on just how much there is about it and whether it isn't user generated. It would be best to link the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably referring to [5]. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that article was not written by Giant Bomb staff, just Danny Baranowski, who I am pretty sure is not a member of their staff. Being essentially a reposted blogpost, I don't believe it qualifies as reliable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to be written by an official staff member. We don't usually discount articles written by freelancers or guest columnists if it's in a reliable publication. WP:VG/S states for Giant Bomb: "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's editorial staff." --Mika1h (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The final discussion on Giant Bomb at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 116#Situational sources states that it is "reliable only if written by staff writers". I believe you are misinterpreting that description. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I am. The context in that discussion was about distinguishing between staff written and user-generated content. I've not seen anything specifically dismissing freelancers/guest writers. This piece is not user-generated since it has "Giant Bomb Staff" on the byline. For example, other reliable sources, like Rock Paper Shotgun have dozens of contributors (i.e. not "staff writers"), we do not dismiss articles written by them. --Mika1h (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a guest writer, but that is not the same as a freelance "contributor". Baranowski is a composer by trade and as far as I know only wrote that one article for them? It's the exact same as citing the opinion of you, me, or some person on social media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, it's very much the same as a piece written by a freelancer/guest columnist. It is vetted by "Giant Bomb Staff". Something written by you or me on Giant Bomb wouldn't get that treatment. It would be user-generated content, which this article by Baranowski is not. --Mika1h (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Giant Bomb's coverage is fairly thin but I think it's just enough to count as SIGCOV and with the two proper reviews it just barely manages to reach notability. --Mika1h (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but the sourcing is is just about good enough. Cortador (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a run-of-the-mill Kickstarter game; I think it needs more development coverage for a Keep. One from 4players but not enough. IgelRM (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, barely reaches notability with the Giant Bomb and Eurogamer sources. The site Rock Paper Shotgun also has written 2 articles about it, one of them being a game review. here and here

Article definitely could use more sources though (and has too many primary ones) ApexParagon (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Ring Road, Ranchi

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

contested redirect without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nom.'~
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:GEOROAD 128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above IP has been blocked for disruption, but I will still point out for future !voters that this road does not meet GEOROAD. If the article is to be believed, it maintained by Ranchi Municipal Corporation, which makes it a municipal (city) road. It would have to be at least a state highway maintained by Jharkhand to meet GEOROAD, and even that does not guarantee notability if no sources can be found. Toadspike [Talk] 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Doesn't meet GEOROAD, I couldn't find any sources beyond a quote here. OTOH, I don't have the name in the local script or relevant language proficiencies, so it is possible someone could still find sources – if you find enough to meet the GNG, please ping me. Toadspike [Talk] 14:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, keep. It appears to be called "रांची इनर रिंग रोड" in Hindi. It seems to meet the GNG: [6][7][8][9] (first four results on Google News). Onel5969, is this enough for you? Toadspike [Talk] 15:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup...nice job Toadspike. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 10 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. asilvering (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahnus

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:COMPOSER, and WP:BANDMEMBER with no significant coverage from WP:BEFORE other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if something here could be rescued by rewriting this into an article about the music group or the scandal itself? This Korean source, cited in the article, states that "the plagiarism suspicions surrounding singer Lee Hyo-ri's album, which had been causing a stir in the music industry for a month, have been partially confirmed to be true, causing a huge backlash. The expression 'the greatest plagiarism fraud case' is also appearing." This suggests that there are other sources out there - and also, that the article focus should be on the scandal, not the individual (who seems not very notable - we don't even have their birth date or pretty much anything about their life outside this scandal). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources only cover the band in the context of the plagiarism scandal. No coverage outside of that. ApexParagon (talk) 02:56, 11 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 05:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sympitar

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

Musical instrument created by Fred Carlson and mentioned on his website, and mentioned in an interview by the person who commissioned him Carson to make Sympitar. The only independent source I could find on Sympitar with sparse-to-moderate coverage is this [10]. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find coverage that is simultaneously independent and in-depth.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Romney Am Dram

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

Fails WP:GNG, Before search yeilds nothing. GNews yeild no result. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Entertainment, and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single independent ref cited, and a completely WP:MILL amateur theatre group. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up their website and facebook posts, which are all primary sources. What's in the article now are simple confirmation of various performances. Not meeting notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7 - Literally the first thing that pops up on my end is this Wikipedia article's talk page! This fails WP:GNG and WP:MILL at the same time. JTZegers (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability or sources. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This lacks RSes, there is only one source and it is not independent. This definitely lacks notability and should not be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saket Modi

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Looks like a WP:PROMO article. Svartner (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kante pind

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

Does this even exist? Is "Aalam Garh" a human or a location? It appears to be a location. Polygnotus (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most likely doesn't even exist [11]. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it کیت which is located here? Polygnotus (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It must be this, Google calls it "Kaint". Polygnotus (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct — it is Kaint (Urdu: کینت), but I will support its deletion in the absence of reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources covering the location. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. These UNREFERENCED articles should never have been accepted on Wikipedia to begin with, in my view...Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single source to support inclusion. For all we know, it could be made up. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3ZE

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

Radio station that fails WP:GNG. I was only able to find one word mentions of it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cursory search of PapersPast turns up two useful pieces of significant coverage: https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19781129.2.23?end_date=31-12-1989&items_per_page=10&query=3ZE&snippet=true&start_date=01-01-1977&type=ARTICLE%2CILLUSTRATION , https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19791203.2.14?end_date=31-12-1989&items_per_page=10&query=3ZE&snippet=true&sort_by=byDA&start_date=01-01-1977&type=ARTICLE%2CILLUSTRATION , and there are a few more in NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 03:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not significant coverage. The newspapers you provided are just one sentence mentions of this station, they cant be used as sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WhoIsCentreLeft, they are articles that would be the foundational underpinning of some pretty important text. Probably would and should look like this:

In October 1978, Radio New Zealand opened a temporary radio station, Radio Ashburton, in celebration of the town's centenary. Its broadcasting warrant was extended until the end of the year, allowing the station to broadcast on New Year's Eve. While RNZ also applied for permanent operating authority for the service, Radio Avon objected to the Broadcasting Tribunal's initial decision, and it took nearly a year for the Supreme Court to rule in RNZ's favor. Once that occurred and the studios had been completed, 3ZE began broadcasting on 2 December 1979. It consisted of four hours of locally-originating programmes, with the remainder of the broadcast day consisting of a relay of 3ZB in Christchurch.

Our coverage of NZ radio, quite plainly, sucks, and sometimes it feels like the newspaper availability isn't all there to salvage it. But there is just enough here to pass the GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the nominator does not appear to know about PapersPast,BEFORE would not have been possible in a meaningful manner. Schwede 66 10:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would not classify the paperspast sources as significant coverage — they are primary sources and notability requires secondary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion on the PapersPast sources, and if there any others
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage has now been demonstrated. Cortador (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CG Electronics

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

Lack of sources to meet notability. Given references are just press release about opening of service centres. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV as a company, (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Companies also require WP:SIGCOV and notability. A couple RSes does not meet that threshold so it should not be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purefoods Corned Beef

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

All the sources I found and in the article is a bunch of passing mention. No significant coverage on the sources listed on the article and even on the web. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Philippines. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wat is passing mention Webster guy (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Webster guy: WP:PASSINGMENTION or Trivial Mention means sources only mention the subject briefly Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But they fully talk abotu ti check again lol Webster guy (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1: One Sentence mention

Source 2: Listings, not even a sentence Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per criteria G3. Looks like a case of disruptive editing/vandalism (first edit for the page has the comment "yeah im gonna die" ?). Given the author's user page (april fools day tag for user page edited on April 17. . .) and the general style of writing this article + account seems to have been created to waste other editors' time.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe G3 applies to the current state of the article. While the edit summary in that revision states "yeah im gonna die," this alone doesn't constitute vandalism or a blatant hoax, which are the criteria required for a G3 speedy deletion. The content added in that revision does not appear to be false or intentionally disruptive, just a ton of typos and grammar issues.

Also, the state of their user page shouldn't affect the judgment of this article. We're here to assess whether the subject is notable based on the article itself, not based on anything related to their user page. AstrooKai (Talk) 11:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:PRODUCT. While a popular product in the Philippines, it lacks WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. AstrooKai (Talk) 11:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it exists but I was unable to find anything (Awards, pop culture relevance etc.) that warrants notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails the notability guidelines. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm looking through sources. I don't see enough to meet GNG yet, but [12] from the Philippine Daily Inquirer definitely contributes to GNG and I would lean towards accepting this as contributing, at least in part. I will come back to this. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 22:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idk the first one but the second one is definitely doesn't not satisfy GNG per WP:SIGCOV, one paragraph is not enough for sigcov Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 00:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miminity, perhaps you can explain for me as you have much more experience with AfD and more generally notability (and my understanding of notability is poor). Is significant coverage merely !trivial mention? Or is there significant coverage, trivial mention, and somewhere inbetween? I really don't find the wording of WP:SIGCOV helpful; the article linked:

addresses the topic in some detail
addresses the topic directly
no original research is needed to extract the content
is pretty clearly more than a trivial mention

Is this source completely unusable for assessing notability because it is just below the threshold for SIGCOV? Is it far below? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my key points on Significant Coverage is, The source is long enough (Some might say WP:100WORDS is the treshold, some might say 3 paragraph is enough). The source focuses on the subject itself not the subject was involve with. The source should not also on a tangent unless it is long enough to tangent and get back to the topic. The newspaper above just talks about subject in like one sentence and then talks about the people involve in the announcement. This in turn makes the subject just a mere mention and just seems to be those "and finally" stories. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miminity, this helps. I think we have different reads of the source: the description of the attendants is done to establish the significance of the product and its entrance to the market, not to establish the significance of the attendees. Strictly on the product, we learn:

Purefoods Corned Beef is owned by Filipino company Purefoods-Hormel Co
It has been released beyond the domestic market, specifically in Dubai
Manufacturing for that release was undertaken in Brazil by a large beef processor
The production was intentionally undertaken in a way that met the particular, religious needs of the market
The expansion of the product into Dubai was supported by the Filipino government by the attendance of a commercial attaché.

Would you describe this as a mere mention? And more importantly to my mind, do you think that this not meeting numerical thresholds means we should not omit it from considerations of the subject's notability? I'll go back shortly to searching for sources and if I find some good ones, it may render the conversation for this case moot.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can use it as a source for text but for establishing notability. At least for me, many AFD participants I met almost always follow a paragraph metric. I good source for me at least talks about the subject at least longer than a mere paragraph so it is not a WP:MILL and a "and finally" news. But the main thing even if the sources above satisfy SIGCOV, a common rule of thumb for # of sources to satisfy GNG are WP:THREE (though an essay, main AFD participants always follow). Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miminity, glad you could confirm. I'll continue to see if there are those three, and if not this one can go on the delete pile. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 09:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging this following participants for their thoughts @RedactedHumanoid:, @Lenticel:, @AstrooKai:, @Anonrfjwhuikdzz: Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis. Personally, I don't think there's a way for this product to become notable. I mean, it's just another corned beef product like others. There's nothing special about it that would make it different from other similar products on the market. Sure, it's common and popular in the Philippines, but there's not enough significant coverage from various sources that would differentiate it and make it more significant than other similar products. AstrooKai (Talk) 07:41, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still think it should be deleted. Coverage is mostly routine and not in depth or persistent enough to establish notability. Still think this article was created to waste editor time. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. I think if they want some of the cites there might be useful to expand the parent article San Miguel Food and Beverage instead. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:02, 10 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 and redirect‎ to Serbia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Matijević

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

Redirect to Serbia at the 2010 Winter Olympics because I could not find any in-depth coverage for this bobsleigh athlete to meet WP:GNG. This article was deleted from Serbian Wikipedia on 3 November 2019 (Слободан Матијевић), very likely due to notability concerns. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serbia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Guyanese representative cricketers. ✗plicit 14:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Christiani

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find anything. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and South America. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief mention in an unrelated memoir [13], but that's not enough. Sourcing in the article is rather thin as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability and don't see any possible redirect targets either. Vestrian24Bio 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand why List of Guyanese representative cricketers isn't a reasonable redirection target – it's even linked from the page as a see also. A short note could be added there to summarise what we know in addition to the note that is already in the table. This is a common ATD for articles about cricketers going back years, and retains the page history and attribution should detailed sourcing become available in the future and the article is re-created. I'd certainly redirect it Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BST. AA (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is just one RS which fails to meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, this is not notable to remain included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BST. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:58, 9 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 14:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Md. Imrul Hassan

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

BLP. Man doing his job. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an up and coming but run of the mill business person. We are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Agent 007 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Houng On Yee

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

Tagged with a note tag. Reference in dictionary of biography is the wife Myrtle Houng On Yee. References are slim, passing mentions. Potentially notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The entry in the biographical dictionary is not just for his wife — both of them have separate entries in the Northern Territory Dictionary of Biography. So that's one source that definitely qualifies towards WP:GNG. I'm struggling to find a second though. He is mentioned in a couple of journal articles and in these three books [14] [15] [16], but based on the snippet views I don't think any of them are likely to be SIGCOV. I think that this book might contain more about him but I can't access it. And I didn't have any luck finding anything on Trove. Will keep looking for an additional source. MCE89 (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see his name in the dictionary. There is a Holing On Yee, Charles though? scope_creep^Talk 11:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, the entry on page 292 under the heading "Houng On Yee, Charles (Charlie) (1905-1996)" is pretty clearly him. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind, I see what you mean — it looks like there's a typo in the table of contents and his name is misspelled as "Holing On Yee, Charles". But if you go to the entry on page 292 you can see that it's spelled correctly. MCE89 (talk) 12:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right. Geez, how weird is that. Well if he is in, that makes him likely notable but I'd like to see a couple of more references and see what other folk say on it. I think if I'd seen it and passed the review. I wonder if its worth carrying on? scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of this page and as you may have seen on my usepage I am working on adding as many people from the NT Dictionary of Biography as possible and, yes, Charlie has an entry. I am undertaking this project as the Northern Territory is underrepresented on Wiki and it is a personal 'on wiki' passion of mine.

For some entries I have found that there is not enough to make a case for notability or other resources to use and I have added them to Wikidata without attempting to create a Wikipedia article. I do understand why Charlie is nominated in relation to notability but would like to make the case that he IS included in the NT Dictionary of Biography.

Aliceinthealice (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its an article not a page. There is no pages on Wikipedia. Yes, I think probably makes him notable. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 09:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1911 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Costa

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

WP:LUGSTUB that has been returned to mainspace without any additional sourcing of the kind that would satisfy WP:NSPORT. The only assertion of notability is a team medal at the 1911 Turin Artistic Gymnastics Championships (note, not the official world championship, since these weren't held until 1931), and a silver for rings and a bronze for parallel bars at the same event.

The team medal cannot be an indicator of individual notability, since notability is not inherited from the team. For these individual "medals" (as is explained later, there were no individual medals at these games), only four people appear to have competed at the rings, three of whom received "silver", and as such this "silver" cannot be an indicator of notability since everyone received "silver" or better. Similarly, for the parallel bars, it appears that everyone who competed received a medal, so again this bronze shared with six other people cannot indicate notability.

Moreover the circumstances of the 1911 Turin gymnastics championships mean they can hardly be considered the equivalent of modern games: the competition took place in the dark with the competitors being allowed to use their own equipment. Competitors were allowed to "cheat" on the parallel bars. Officially speaking this was only a team event, with no individual awards - the "gold", "silver" , "bronze" designations were given post-facto.

Searching further I see that Costa (or at least someone with the same name) took part in the 1919 Inter-Allied Games, but again his performance in the horse riding and jumping does not appear to have attracted significant coverage. I don't see anything in the corresponding French Wiki article that would fix this. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a huge pain to search for sources, but I think its likely that he's notable. He could have been known by several names, e.g. "Costa Antoine", "Antoine Costa", "Antoine Seville", and French newspaper archives Gallica has many matches that are of him, but its very time consuming to search through them all and get them translated (a few coverage examples: [17] [18]). There's a brief piece on him here; apparently he and Louis Ségura were the sole Olympians of Spanish nationality in 1908. His accomplishments and the confirmed coverage make me feel like his notability is likely. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you search for names other than the name of this article, you find information about people with other names. Yes also, it is difficult to find sources for this article which is why it better to find the sources before the article is created. Giving time for these sources to be found was the reason why this article was draftified.
It is also time-absorbing to go through results that clearly aren't relevant to the topic under discussion and/or don't provide signficant coverage of him, but here we are, so:
I do not see what hits from the Gallica search are relevant here. The first hit is La Dépêche algérienne which does not mention any gymnast by the name of Antoine Costa: it gives three excepts, the first is about a shoemaker called Antoine Claver, the second is a death notice posted by Mr and Mrs Antoine Costa and their children, the third is a notice about the arrest of a man by the name of Rico Boras Antoine. The second hit is much the same except Mr and Mrs Antoine Costa are posting a marriage notice this time. What is it we're supposed to be looking at here?

The L'Écho sportif de l'Oranie article is not WP:SIGCOV of Costa. It simply makes a couple of bare mentions of Costa ("...Antoine Costa et Bensadoum sont egalement a admirer ... Costa Antoine 2e du championnat artistique ...", or in machine translation " ... Antoine Costa and Bensadoum are also to be admired ... Costa Antoine 2nd in the artistic championship ... "). This is not SIGCOV.

The Le Libéral article similarly contains no significant coverage of Costa. It simply mentions him as one of the six member of the French team, and then says "Nos felicitations aux champions d'Algeries et au professeur costa de notre excellente societe de gymnastique l'Oranais", or in machine translation "Our congratulations to the Algerian champions and to Professor Costa of our excellent Oranian gymnastics society". This is not SIGCOV - it is not even clear that "Professor Costa" is the same as Antoine Costa.

The Meyba article similar just says "Antoine Costa nació en Orán el 23 de octubre de 1884, también compitió en 1912. En su partida de nacimiento también figura la anotación espagnol" or in machine translation "Antoine Costa was born in Oran on October 23, 1884, and also competed in 1912. His birth certificate also includes the notation "espagnol". Again, this is not SIGCOV.
If you want more time to find sources for this, then simply reverting the mainspacing and re-instating the five-year count-down agreed in WP:LUGSTUBS is an option. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It appears this article was returned to mainspace a year ago? In any event, the subject appears to be notable. Guidance via WP:NGYMNAST is notability is likely to exist when an individual "Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition"; Costa received 2 individual medals (plus a team medal), which satisfies. The World Artistic Gymnastics Championships is the 2nd most important/high profile gymnastics competition (first being Olympics). Your personal feelings on the competition is a false equivalence; athletes and competitions are ever-evolving. Baseball played in the 1920's is very different compared to the 40's, which is different compared to the '60s, '80s, etc.

This feels like a WP:RUSHDELETE situation, especially as BeanieFan11 immediately found 100+ year old sources in a foreign language which also speaks to notability. To add on to what they've found, I'm not even good at research on non-American sources, but even I was able to find this in a different L'Écho sportif de l'Oranie paper, which details the team, including Costa, who qualified to participate at the 1911 World Championships. It goes to say that Costa initially placed 7th (the top 6 made the team), but we obviously know later he was sent.

Feels like a lot of smoke here for there not to be a fire. Between all of the mentions, plus what already exists, in my opinion we're good here. GauchoDude (talk) 14:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally just another bare mention ("Monitour d'gynastique: M. Antoine Costa"), and as discussed above, in 1911 there were no individual medals, only team awards. The first individual champion was only recognised in 1922, the “medals” were attributed post-facto. This is why the results shows three people receiving “silver”, and six people receiving “bronze” - apparently everyone who took part in those events got a "medal", which is a specific exception under WP:NOLY and by extension for lesser events also. To go even further, these were not even officially the world championships - the first wasn't even held until 1931. At the time what is now called FIG was then just FEG (i.e., the European gymnastics federation, not the world one) - the name didn't change until the Americans joined in 1921 (see p.41 here).

Additionally, it really has to be emphasised that articles are not "rewards" for a specific level of performance: the only reason that we generally assume that e.g., an Olympic medal winner is likely to have SIGCOV is because generally they normally do, but even in that case, a WP:GNG pass must eventually be shown, which requires multiple instances of significant coverage, not bare-mentions simply of the name of the subject in local newspapers. Asking that this happen six years after the mass-creation of this article by Lugnuts is in no way a rush to delete.

TL;DR - no individual "medals" were awarded at this event, it was not the "world" championship, and anyway a WP:GNG pass is still needed. FOARP (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basically per FOARP's reply of 06:40, 27 April. We don't have sources to pass GNG/NSPORT, and there is no reason to presume notability per the NSPORT guidelines. Can't see why this was moved back to mainspace without any improvement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sportsperson articles are required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG. This has to happen regardless of whether the subject also meets NGYMNAST, which clearly they do not by any reasonable assessment of the criteria. We have no sources demonstrating notability, therefore this article cannot exist in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GauchoDude, per global consensus this article is required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV for us to have any presumptions from NGYMNAST of additional coverage existing. Zero sources satisfying this requirement have been identified, and the article was draftified with the expectation that it would only be moved back to mainspace iff such sources were added. JoelleJay (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1911 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships where he won a medal. Articles require multiple sources containing IR SIGCOV, not just one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He won a team medal. Despite what that page says, he didn't win an individual medal. However the page mentions him and would still mention him under the team. even if the individual events table were modified, so a redirect is an acceptable ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1911 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships: No indication of notability is here for this subject to have a standalone article under the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn‎. Svartner (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri

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

I can find absolutely nothing about this individual on a WP:BEFORE search other than facebook posts and the like, and the article itself (along with being incredibly poorly written and overly long for no apparent reason) has absolutely zero sources. As such I don't believe this article meets WP:BIO.

Update for closer, per below have changed to Keep. CoconutOctopus talk 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Pakistan. CoconutOctopus talk 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards. ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found from me either. Not sure this subject is verifiable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article would clearly need to be totally rewritten, and probably renamed, if kept, but there seem to be some sources here. Remember that South Asian names are often surrounded by honorifics and don't usually come with consistent spelling in a foreign alphabet. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXHAUST ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

--ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standard ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I would like to clarify that the article on **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** is based on verifiable historical and spiritual references. The most comprehensive source is the book *Bahr-ul-Ishq*, authored and published in Balochistan with multiple editions in **1923**, 1952, 1968, 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2008 by Fateh Chand Kunya Lal. This book documents the life, teachings, and spiritual lineage of **Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri** in detail.

A digital version of the book is publicly available here: Bahr-ul-Ishq – Archive.org

I believe this satisfies the requirement of WP:V and demonstrates notability as per WP:BIO. I respectfully request that this article not be deleted. This subject holds significant cultural and spiritual importance, and the article has been created to make this knowledge accessible to the public, including through search engines like Google. I am fully open to rewriting, restructuring, and improving the article to meet Wikipedia's standards.

--ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I located a single reference to him here, but it is unclear if it meets BIO because of it. Article needs degaussing; it is currently a hagiography, and his name should be Rakhyal Shah. Bennett, Clinton; Ramsey, Charles M. (1 March 2012). South Asian Sufis: Devotion, Deviation, and Destiny. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-4411-5127-8. Ogress 22:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be more sources with the spelling "Rakhial Shah" than with "Rakhyal Shah". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Spell Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri & this is not correct spell Rakhial Shah ATIF ALI JISKANI 2346 & (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've now converted the article to a stub with hopefully reliable sources. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been rewritten since it was nominated. @CoconutOctopus, @Yoblyblob, and @Phil Bridger, would you like to update or reaffirm your original assessments? Toadspike [Talk] 14:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Howardcorn33, please try not move articles while they are at AfD unless absolutely necessary (e.g. BLP vios). Toadspike [Talk] 14:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive work! Happy to change my vote to keep. CoconutOctopus talk 15:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep changing my vote from earlier since subject appears verifiable. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pires against Camargos

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

Note tag placed for more than a years. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even the pt.wiki article lacks reliable sources, the "Aventuras na História" website is much more a curiosity website than an academic source. Lacks in-depth documentation. Svartner (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2021 Japan Curling Championships. Since there was some discussion of this being WP:TOOSOON, I am noting here that if in future an editor finds one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject to meet WP:SPORTCRIT this article can likely be restored. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 15:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asei Nakahara

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CURLING. Has played in the World championships and has medalled at the Youth Olympics. I'm sure there must be some reliable sources in Japanese that can be found.-- Earl Andrew - talk 19:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found these in Japanese [19], [20], [21] but I'm not sure if they would constitute significant coverage although the third article is purely about him. Also it should be noted that he was only the reserve at the Worlds. Not voting at this stage, just putting out what I could find to hopefully aide the discussion. Shrug02 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources of IRS SIGCOV have been identified. The links above are to two trivial mentions and a press release reprinted by his own school. Fails SPORTSCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This sources given above are trivial mentions. This guy doesn't have a JP wiki. I search JP news and found nothing except trivial mentions. I would vote delete but he and his team medaled on Curling at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics so maybe notable for that?. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a children's event though Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOLYMPICS does not mention the Youth Olympics in its criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Trimax503 (talk) 09:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We are not at a keep here, but they are still active. It is at least possible they will become notable one day. Is there an ATD we can agree on that preserves page history? A redirect somewhere? Or is there any mileage in draftification? Draftify, however, won't do if there is no realistic possibility of new sources before the draft expires. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect we should preserve the page history and redirect it. I found these two to be most related here, 2021 Japan Curling Championships and List of curlers#Japan. First one would make more sense though. This way WP:ATD as it is WP:TOOSOON. @Sirfurboy: and @Earl Andrew: can we save and redirect it there, any suggestions? HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2021 Japan Curling Championships where subject is mentioned and per HilssaMansen19 above. As per my comment, we don't have the necessary sources yet, but a reasonable case can be made that this may change, and the redirect will preserve page history should that happen. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hamek

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

This seems to be a legendary battle, one in which 11 to 12 soldiers beat an entire 8,000. However, all the sources seem to be in Kurdish, or if not, by pro-Kurdish sites. This is concerning, as for such a supposedly shocking and major victory, there is not a single source that's not pro-Kurdish speaking about anything relating to this (at least not in English). If I had to guess, this might be some sort of legend made up between Kurds for nationalist reasons. Any thoughts on this? Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. Setergh (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the user has been caught on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1j8qah3/comment/mi0nzdg/). It's quite clear that the user might not be working in Wikipedia's interests, as per https://www.reddit.com/r/kurdistan/comments/1g9hn3g/can_somebody_give_me_names_of_battles_between_the/ where they seem to be wanting Kurdish victories for some sort of "edit". This also happened during the Iran–Iraq War, which is an incredibly well documented event, therefore I'm unsure why there would be no mention of this battle. Setergh (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This is a historical battle, not legendary. I intend to expand the article and add appropriate sourcing to support its notability. Zemen (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. - The battle happened during Iran Iraq War, If this engagement were real and notable, It would be almost certainly be mentioned in reliable sources covering the war in detail. Additionally the Article lacks of reliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@R3YBOl Are you aware that many incidents and genocides involving Kurds remain undocumented and largely unknown to writers and historians? This video features Najmadin Shukr himself speaking about the battle. Why do you think he has articles across multiple languages of Wikipedia? It's largely because of this battle. What writer or historian would easily uncover a battle that took place in a remote, desolate village. especially during a time when larger conflicts, like the Iran-Iraq war, were dominating attention. Zemen (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A youtube video of the person supposedly involved in the battle mentioning it is still not a reliable source. The argument of the Iran-Iraq War dominating attention and therefore meaning this battle gets none is absurd, especially when there is not a single source I could find that wasn't affiliated with the Kurds (at least not a reliable one) about such an insane victory. If this battle was known to be real, at least a few people would briefly mention the battle, but this seems to have never happened. Setergh (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The video is from facebook, not yt. It features Najmadin, the commander in the battle. I know it is not a reliable source, and I'm still working on finding a credible version or a copy from a trusted place, or atleast find a source. but for now, I support deletion. Zemen (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Najmadin Shukr Rauf where the conflict is mentioned. We can’t have encyclopedia articles based on vague, unscholarly and highly partisan eulogies. Mccapra (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra The battle is already mentioned in the page of Najmadin Shukr Rauf, Yet still cited by unreliable sources. R3YBOl (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree there aren’t enough reliable independent sources to support a standalone article about the battle. That’s a different thing to saying the encyclopedia should not make any mention of the battle at all because we can’t even be sure it happened. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If proper reliable secondary sourcing, preferably of the academic publication type, can't be shown covering this battle in detail, then I think we'd be better off just deleting. Currently, this seems like some form of exaggerated hagiography than coverage of an actual historical event with factual backing. Since the latter would have actual book and academic paper coverage. Silver seren^C 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think (assuming the decision is that the article is a COI) there are two main options: if the article is deleted, the mention can be kept of a reported or potentially legendary battle in the Najmadin Shukr Rauf page. If the article is kept, it can be reworked as a probable propoganda story. I won't support a motion for this since I think either one could work, but those are my thoughts. Tylermack999 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support per nom. Kajmer05 (talk) 00:44, 10 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. – robertsky (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serretta Wilson

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

Lacks independent SIGCOV. I searched EBSCO database, archive.org, and Google News. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Kingdom, and United States of America. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've searched several times, and I can't find any reliable sources to support notability. There may be sources offline, but unless they can be located, this article is not viable.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, she has had quite a few roles, and some people might remember her as Sergeant Wilson's daughter in Dad's Army. PatGallacher (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found a couple more sources. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this Gloucestershire Echo piece is substantial enough. I have added that and another source to the article. More sources do exist. BD2412 T 18:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sayles

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

Lost 3 of his 4 official fights in the UFC before being released. Doesn't seem to pass WP:MMA or WP:GNG. Highest rank achieved on FightMatrix is #148. (https://www.fightmatrix.com/fighter-search/?fName=Matt+Sayles). I'd like to know what you guys think. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find anything on Google to support WP:GNG. For notability for mixed martial arts, Sayles isn't in a top ten rank as suggested by WP:NMMA. Here are his profiles at Fightmatrix and Sherdog. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per PacificDepths. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not close to meeting WP:NMMA or WP:ANYBIO. Also lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. – robertsky (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easter in the Balkans

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

Reads a lot like AI slop with many weasel words and is very similar to the Romanian article that is also being AfD'ed. It also incorporates AI images. Laura240406 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic seems obviously notable. Why can’t it be fixed? Hyperbolick (talk) 08:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this essay. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is clearly WP:CGC for the purpose of edit farming. This could also fall under WP:U5, in which case the editor should be blocked from editing. JTZegers (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how can you be so sure it's an AI creation? Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It just looks like an AI slop job, with pictures and all. JTZegers (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw the author's response also sounds very much AI generated and includes a lot of en dashes in a way that ChatGPT allegedly uses them Laura240406 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. AI slop, like one from ChatGPT, must be reworded or simplified in the editor's words. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is this some kind of project? We also have very similar articles (by a different editor) about Ramadan throughout the world, like Ramadan in Indonesia and Ramadan in France. Fram (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seems like it, those two articles are obviously AI slop (e.g. the first sentence: "Ramadan in Indonesia is a vibrant and spiritual period, deeply rooted in the country's cultural fabric") Laura240406 (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator has blanked the article. Additionally, when I looked at their talk page, the response seemed very likely to be AI generated. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is in clear violation of policies/guidelines against original research and is likely AI slop. If it is a topic worth an article, I think it would be better to blow it up and start over. ❤History Theorist❤ 03:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St+art India Foundation

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

The foundation does not meet WP:NORG. References 1 and 3 are not independent, and Reference 2 is about the founder's passing. Online searches return only trivial mentions with no in-depth, independent coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Organizations, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Delete as per nomination. Fails WP:GNG and not found any WP:RS. Misopatam (talk | contribs) 07:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not demonstrate significant coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless better sourcing can be found (and posted here if possible). The only solid reliable source is Architectural Digest [22] but that's not enough to pass WP:NCORP or GNG. The article is written with a highly promotional tone, the sourcing seems like PR, and Google Arts & Culture should not be used as a citation (it's like asking AI to write an article about a subject). BTW, GPTzero and Grammerly detects that about 3/4 of the article itself was written by AI. Netherzone (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Kunce

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

Per WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Candidate for office but has never been elected. Not notable outside of the campaign. All coverage is related to his unsuccessful campaigns. Unless his military service is notable, this is individual has dubious notability. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Missouri. Zinderboff (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree I don't think failing to win the plebiscites a person has stood as candidate in makes their participation meaningless or unnoteworthy; WP:NPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES are really some lousy policies, and I'm going to argue here from WP:FLEXIBILITY instead. Democracy is a conversation at heart, and while the chatter mostly occurs in the electorate, it's the candidates that do the driving. It's important that our collective memory retain a record of the people who have the courage to participate in the system and do that driving. Let the Secretary of State for the jurisdictions do the gatekeeping, but here I think we should give a pass on WP:N to people that satisfy whatever that official administering the race enforces, especially on the statewide offices in the U.S. I hardly watch television/streaming video, but I actually remember seeing a short clip by this guy last year and what he said led me to believe he was a serious person trying to positively impact lives in his area. If he can manage to win a national party's nomination for statewide office and be both seen and remembered by a guy from California with zero connection to Missouri ~6 months into my steadfast effort to forget that the entire election cycle even took place, that's notable enough for me. Furthermore, it's obvious that some number of our editing brethren put real work into making this a solid and informative article, and I won't be a party to treating their work as unworthy when it clearly isn't. RogueScholar (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since it was asked by the nom, this person's military service is not notable. LtCol isn't an especially high rank, and JAG officers enter as captains in any case (so he was promoted twice).Intothat darkness 14:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable per WP:GNG through multiple political campaigns. WP:NPOL establishes notability but doesnt mean failing NPOL automatically means that a person is non-notable, the person can still be notable per WP:GNG. --hroest 16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. He technically fails NPOL, but there is significant coverage of his ongoing efforts in the political discourse and his antics. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. QoopyQoopy (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep echoing Hannes Röst, not satisfying NPOL is not an indicator of a lack of notability. Multi-year sigcov in reliable sources already available in the article, passes the GNG/ANYBIO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:34, 9 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 delete‎. G5, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikihow6754. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt DuBois

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

Fails WP:GNG, all coverage of him is in passing.Practically, we have very little actual biographical information on DuBois, just a bunch of quotes he gave. BEFORE found little else. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DuBois's name apparently comes up regularly in articles about Penn State because he's the one to give public comment in his capacity as a public relations director. He himself isn't the subject of any of these articles and is never discussed in depth. hinnk (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia

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

Bringing to AFD following discussion at what Wikipedia is Not regarding this page being a violation WP:NOTGUIDE. Proposal is to either selectively merge content from this page into the main Huntington, West Virginia page and ~~delete~~ redirect this one, or remove the travel guide fluff and move this article to a new page entitled "List of parks in Huntington, West Virginia". nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Sports, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you WP:MERGE content from one article into another, then we can't WP:DELETE the original, due to license requirements. So I think your proposal needs to be choosing between merge-and-redirect vs stripping it down to a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, didn't think about the license aspect here. Modified accordingly. nf utvol (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage. It would be a pity to lose this material, but it clearly doesn't belong in WP. — hike395 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note at voy:en:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Re-direct Keep the referenced stuff, just de-fluff and merge into the main article and then redirect.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support both proposed merge' content to Huntington and delete this article as proposed or alternate proposal of reducing this article down to a bare-bones list of parks (which are tolerated for several cities). Keeping the referenced stuff won't work because a lot of that material is still classic travel guide material. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean merge and redirect or reduce, I hope, as merging requires saving the article history for attribution (unless you copy the list of contributors, which is cumbersome and less useful). I did link the version that was current at time of nomination from voy:Talk:Huntington (West Virginia), so that anybody working at that article on Wikivoyage can merge in useful parts as appropriate. –LPfi (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per hike395. Ré union! 06:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect + Transwiki Definitely agree with nom that it falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. But it is good content for Wikivoyage and generally the page is well cited and well written. Each of the sections needs to be looked at individually. E.g. Recreation in Huntington, West Virginia#Ritter Park should be merged into Ritter Park. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage per hike395. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 23:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikivoyage. Obviously doesn’t belong on Wikipedia due to being written in a travel guide style, but the page is well sourced and high quality enough for Wikivoyage. ApexParagon (talk) 12:18, 11 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. – robertsky (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Drean

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

Excluding primary sources and unreliable sources, there doesn't seem to be anything that meets GNG or NAUTHOR. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Massachusetts, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly promotional, quite aside from that the subject doesn't meet the GNG, this reads like a sales brochure. Some of the [creator's other articles] look rather the same, and a question as to whether this is a paid editor comes to mind. Ravenswing 07:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found one (very negative) book review in Publishers Weekly but nothing else. Can't see any indication of a WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much an advertisement that fails GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there is some precedent that bad reviews can contribute to notability. I only see one reliable review in a pile of what's close to TNT territory. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 14:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chee

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

I don't see where this meets GNG, it seems like mostly primary sources and cruft, and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up sigcov. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - executive coaches, like political party secretaries and film "executive" producers, are run of the mill unless they have significant coverage, and I see nothing that separates him from the flock. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Anarchyte (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandu Salimkumar

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. Only four films, the first of which is about himself. — Maile (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a non-notable actor, who only has Four Films Destinyokhiria (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 08:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. actor may not have an extensive body of work, but he played a prominent role in his debut film Manjummel Boys, as noted in a review Pinkvilla review. According to Mathrubhumi, he also had a main role in the film Painkili. I need to research more before I can say anything for sure.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this personality may have done notable work but lacks proper news sources to establish work. Improvement could be done on the page.Almandavi (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR. Played notable characters in multiple noted films.

Afstromen (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Appears to fail both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The references provided show little to no significant coverage to pass GNG notability criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:18, 10 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 of the Girls

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

One AllMusic review and some local news about one of the members from decades later does not seems like substantial coverage to me, and I didn't find anything else. Not sure if it'd be a likely search term, but I probably wouldn't oppose a redirect to "One of the Girls" if the votes land that way. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that there was a prior AfD in 2008 that ended in a keep, though it was a weak one with only two respondents, one of whom only said the article may be readded in the future anyway as their reason for keeping. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I found three good sources with relatively SIGCOV ([23], [24], and [25]). If can get plus ~1-2 sources it would a definite keep from me. —LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't access the third one because my web security is blocking it, but I will give you the first for sure. The second is brief but the coverage looks good as well. It'd be a tight squeeze, but maybe there's an article to be made from this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some more minor coverage her: [26] [27] [28] Geschichte (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think there is enough reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Washington Post, AllMusic, and magazines for a pass of WP:GNG in my view. The third source listed by LastJabberwocky is archived here, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep; some more (albeit brief) coverage available [29] and [30]. ResonantDis_tortion 07:06, 10 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 05:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second presidency of Donald Trump, 2025, 2nd quarter

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

A WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Second presidency of Donald Trump. There is no reason for a split into a quarter of a year of a presidency, especially since there is nothing particularly different or independent from any other quarter or year. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 04:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sophisticatedevening:, Second presidency of Donald Trump is already at 367 K. It’s time for chapter two. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per WP:SPLIT. 76.147.66.77 (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reason cited by nom. The "Tariffs" section is already written in great detail in the Tariffs in the second Trump administration article. Likewise, there's nothing in the "Cabinet changes" section that is not already covered in Second cabinet of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio#Tenure as secretary, and Mike Waltz#Signal app group chat leak. — Staniu lis ✿ 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for heavens sake, delete Wikipedia is not a blow-by-blow chronicle of the the Trump administration. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need a timeline this detailed Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. JTZegers (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others and nom. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perkins, Indiana

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

A spot on the railroad just east of Newton, close enough that on Streetview you can see the structures of the latter off in the distance. This is now the site of a warehouse and nothing else; back in the late 1950s there was a different, smaller building and a single house, but hardly a town. Seems to have just been a rail spot, though at least it amde it onto the topos without the help of the highway department. Mangoe (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Mangoe. A quick Google search turns up nothing notable on the subject. Only two results relating to the topic. One result is this article, and the other is its entry on mapquest. Neither entries show anything notable. Editor113u47132 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though i added a source to a 1955 county history that calls it a "small hamlet", it appears to be the location of what was a grain elevator and a house or two, also called "Perkin's Switch". U.S. 24 bends around those buildings, it appears, so one can imagine the place name became Perkins but its a stretch to call it a "hamlet".--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPLACE. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a railspot and not a settlement within the meaning of GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Novotny

(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. PROD was declined due to rationale of "many incoming links" so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, Illinois, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. The PROD decline reason is not based in policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. The existence of a few primary sources (all of which are official organization or club websites) and a single secondary source, (the Journal Inquirer; no other secondary sources were found) is not enough to establish notability. Although not an official policy, existence does not equate to notability. Neither the primary sources nor the secondary source provide detail sufficient enough to justify the subject having an article, regardless of the number of incoming links. — Staniu lis ✿ 08:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect‎ to Criminal Minds. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Reid

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

Largely not sourced, entirely plot summary. Character does not pass WP:GNG. From a search, lot of casting news, but that cannot sustain an article on a fictional character. Can redirect to the series or character article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The evidence doesn't really support notability, per WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criminal Minds at an alternative to deletion per nom. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the nominator that the article could use more sources and be restructured to not appear as a plot summary. However, that warrants editing and adding to the article, not deleting it. Spencer Reid is a notable figure, and he is frequently the topic of news articles. Here's just one example: https://www.today.com/popculture/dont-hold-your-breath-waiting-reid-seaver-hookup-criminal-minds-wbna41896074 DocZach (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a cast member interview and is not secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this an amazing, top notch quality, quality Wikipedia article? No, probably not. However, this doesn't mean that the subject is not notable enough for conclusion or that it needs to be deleted
Redirect to Criminal Minds#Main, where he is already covered. The current article is nothing but extensive, overly detailed plot summaries, and lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Searches are not really showing significant coverage on the fictional character, rather than on actor or show as a whole, that would justify splitting him out from the already extensive coverage in the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Western Journal of Legal Studies

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. It's a student journal. A merge to University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law would be ok. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Law. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I helped write the bulk of this and believe it passes WP:GNG:
1. It passes C2 of WP:JOURNALCRIT on its own. And though we shouldn't rely exclusively on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this journal seems to pass this more than other journals in the same space. See the remaining Canadian Law Journals, DJLS, or OHLJ.
2. There is good coverage from secondary sources via Canadian Lawyer and CBA National Magazine, passing WP:GNG.
3. Not sure the relevance of it being a student journal (see also the Harvard Law Review) but happy to hear this point clarified.
Ethamn (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C2 is satisfied through citation indexes, which as far as I can see this journal has none of. That is the main problem. The coverage is not enough to satisfy either GNG or NJOURNALS. Harvard is Harvard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to access Web of Science or Scopus and so use Canlii (citations by courts, since this is a law review) as a proxy. I count 8 cites by courts in the last ten years in contrast to 4 from QLJ, 0 from DJLS, etc.

Not sure you've demonstrated your point regarding this being a student journal. That is not relevant to its notability, as you can see from GLJ, HLR, UTFLR, MLJ, and the others in the category. Ethamn (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was more of a correlation thing before, they tend to be less notable. Per the guideline C2 is passed through indexes, individual citations have not led to a keep result as far as I have seen. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has now been demonstrated. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof of how this passes GNG or NJOURNAL? Because it fails both. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong-body narrative

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

Wildly pov article down to its title with only four primary sources supporting it, not at all sufficient coverage for a wikipedia article Snokalok (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Transsexual#Causes, studies, and theories. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there's POV issues here, I'm not seeing them. I see an article that summarizes the perspectives of three academics and one memoirist on a valid topic in gender studies. No one's perspective seems to be given undue weight, nor presented as objectively correct. And even if that were the case, that would be an argument for cleanup, not for deletion. The sources already cited are enough to establish WP:GNG, and Google Scholar shows plenty more that are yet to be cited, e.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] just to take 5 from the first page of results. Keep. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoints on POV:

1. The term "narrative" as opposed to "theory", "hypothesis", "model", etc inherently carries the connotation of deception

2. We only see criticism listed.

These two things come together to form an article inherently opposed to the concept.

I agree however on your presentation of several more sources that GNG is probably satisfied, and believe now that the article must rather be upsourced (and have its name changed) Snokalok (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do reliable sources use terms other than "narrative"? Are there reliable sources (enough to constitute due weight) that take non-critical views? At a glance all of the top sources on Google Scholar seem pretty critical. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin Response forthcoming, I had to take a breather. The UK court ruling has emboldened every terf on the island to try pov rewriting articles on women and trans people to favor a GC view, and that’s been a lot. Anyway, reading over your sources now. Snokalok (talk) 11:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seeing this as a "GC view", I think you may need to step away from articles like this one for a bit, because that sounds like you're seeing ghosts. Most criticism of the wrong-body narrative comes from trans intellectuals, not TERFs. That's true both in general, and in the sources currently in the article; at least three out of the four authors are trans (not sure on Engdahl). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nono not this one, just in general I've been tired. I recognize this article is not one of those, but my energy has been sapped elsewhere and that means I had no energy to work on this section. Snokalok (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, tagging again @Tamzin since this is now my actual rebuttal -

"Wrong-body conception" [36]

"wrong-body model" [37] (Your #5 source)

"Wrong-body claim" [38] (Your #1 source)

These may seem like subtle pedantries, but "narrative" carries the connotation of deception from the start, whereas the rest don't. "Model" is better, imo. I would also place a higher burden on centering academic criticism, given that - one is not going to write a paper saying "I agree with the dominant idea" of this nature while one is absolutely going to write something disagreeing with it, so there will naturally be far more academic papers criticizing the idea. Snokalok (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a majority of reliable sources don't use "narrative", you should start an RM—but I don't see any basis for your reading of the word as implying deception. As to the rest of your comment, we write articles based on the sources that exist, not the sources we wish existed. And we don't reject critical sources. Lots of people write scholarly articles endorsing the dominant idea. That's what it means for something to be the dominant idea. But transmedicalist and binarist arguments for transgender validity have been out of fashion for a decade or so now. And see Breast cancer awareness and Shipping discourse for two existing cases where there's a critical scholarly consensus despite popular opinion being more split. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tamzin; agree that an RM is due, I’d support “model”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Tamzin's sources show the GNG is met. Content issues, including a potential move, can be discussed on the article talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 14:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. RationalWikian (talk) 16:58, 10 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 04:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin to the Trees

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

Fails the basic WP:NMUSIC criteria. This can easily be merged into Neil Young and expanded at Draft:Talkin to the Trees in the meantime. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but clean up and expand significantly). See WP:FUTUREALBUM. The album was just announced yesterday and the article's creator may have jumped the gun, but everything is confirmed including the release date (just five weeks from now) and track list. A basic web search reveals that just about all reliable magazines in Young's genre area are reporting on the album, and those have plenty of background and historical info that can be used to flesh out the article here. See (among many others): [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. The article will probably be improved by Neil Young experts in the coming days; moving it to draftspace then back again next week will accomplish little more than procedural confusion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album, which is due out in just over a month, is the subject of articles in major music publications. Meets notability requirements. Thriley (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can't say it any better than doomsdayer520 J04n(talk page) 16:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:FUTUREALBUM per sources provided. Medxvo (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above. I'm satisfied that the coverage at the moment meets the requirements. And it's destined to make a lot of noise too. Karl Twist (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Turbans (music group)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO#12 "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network". See BBC R6 2018, BBC R3 2018, and BBC R3 2019. ResonantDis_tortion 06:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More sources with SIGCOV [46], https://www.popmatters.com/the-turbans-riders-premiere-2544706825.html], [47], [48], [49]. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 13:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Nominators need to do a WP:BEFORE search, not just make a decision based on what is in the article. Edwardx (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leafcutter John

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No indication of a WP:BEFORE from the nominator. Quick search indicates significant coverage in The Quietus here, two staff reviews on Allmusic, [50]&[51], album of the month in The Guardian [52], and bylined gig review in the York Press here. ResonantDis_tortion 08:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also coverage in Loud and Quiet [53] [54] etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified in this discussion such as the Guardian, the Quitus, Loud and Quiet, AllMusic and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sherline

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

Article reads like an advertisement and does not cite any sources that are not connected to the subject. I could not find any in-depth discussion of the company by reliable, independent sources. Omnigrade (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Sehgal

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Indian-American businessman. The sources do not support notability. We have:

WP:PRIMARYSOURCE official bio or material by Sehgal ([55], [56])
Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEWs ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61]), often unbylined in WP:NEWSORGINDIA outlets.
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in lists of people ([62], [63], [64], [65],
Press releases from his companies or thin reprints of them ([66], [67], [68], [69], [70],
Three footnotes aren't about Sanjay Sehgal at all; they are about Sanjay Kumar, Sanjay Gupta and Sanjay Kadaveru. Other sources don't mention Sehgal at all ([71], [72])

Nothing else qualifying came up in my BEFORE search, but if you search do note there are several other Sanjay Sehgals out there; this is the one who works for MSys. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Delhi, and Georgia (U.S. state). Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without any reliable, secondary sources about the subject themselves, i'm afraid that this subject is not notable per WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Even though there are more sources this time, I agree with the nominator's assessment of them, and my overall assessment is thus the same as it was last December. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my arguments in the past AfD. Infomercials and interviews merely provide evidence he exists, but not proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussion and lack of significant coverage. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure and polity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

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

This was proposed for deletion by Catfurball (talk · contribs) last year, with the rationale When I did a Google search I found almost no third-party references and those that I found were only trivial, this proves to me that this article is not notable. That was contested by someone else who believed this was better suited to an AfD, but that did not happen at the time — instead, Catfurball today started a second PROD nomination. PROD is a one-and-done process, so I procedurally contested it with the intent of bringing the article here. While I agree with the prior deprodder that this would be best suited to a discussion, I am neutral and have no other opinion here; this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I did another Google search of this article and still there are almost no third-party references that talk about it. Those that I found were only trivial, so this proves to me that this article fails WP:ORG. Catfurball (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) To any administrator that closes this discussion you will have to delete all of the redirects that are connected to it first. Catfurball (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some of this needs to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity as it is barely mentioned there, but I would agree there is no reason to have a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are numerous scholarly books discussing this topic on Google Books. Jahaza (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly doubt that. There may be discussions of the history of the SDAs which involve this body, but I doubt very much that there is all that much on the conference itself. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Land's Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-Day Adventists (2nd edition, Rowman and Littlefield, 2015) has a 690 word article just on the General Conference as a whole[73]]. There are also numerous additional articles on related topics, such as individual sessions of the General Conference.
R. Clifford Jones's James K. Humphrey and the Sabbath-Day Adventists (U of Mississippi Press, 2006)[74] writes quite a bit about the racial policy of the General Conference and its establishment within the Conference of a "North American Negro Department".
Stefan Höschele's Adventist Interchurch Relations: A Study in Ecumenics (V&R Unipress, a Brill imprint, 2022)[75] covers the ecumenical policy of the General Conference.
Laura Lee Vance, Seventh-Day Adventism in Crisis: Gender and Sectarian Change in an Emerging Religion (U of Illinois Press, 1999)[76] has a discussion of the General Conference as a whole and then info on various policies of the General Conference over time on gender issues. --Jahaza (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree with Mangoe for key info here to be merged into Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity to preserve content of article at least, as the citations cited does seem too closely associated with the subject, for it to be standalone.Villkomoses (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I 100% agree with User:Mangoe that we do not need a separate article. Catfurball (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engagement with Jahaza's suggested sources, added after the most recent merge !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources identified by Jahaza would support a standalone article but I'm not opposed to a comprehensive merge to Seventh-day Adventist Church#Structure_and_polity as it is certainly relevant to that article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 9 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!} 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard

AfDs for this article:

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

In this entry's third AfD nomination, the intuitive votes would appear to be Keep or Delete, rather than Merge/redirect. The first nomination in December 2007 — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard, with three votes — resulted in deletion. It was recreated in 2012 and nominated — WP:Articles for deletion/Mathew Beard (2nd nomination) — in November 2018. There were three Delete votes, one Delete/redirect vote and three Merge/redirect votes, resulting in Mathew Beard redirecting to either List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest known Americans or List of the verified oldest people#100 verified oldest men (currently redirecting to the latter). However, his name does not appear on either list, nor anywhere else in English Wikipedia, thus making the Mathew Beard redirect that appears among similarly-named men on the Mat Beard disambiguation page completely unhelpful. If the Mathew Beard page is deleted, Talk:Mathew Beard, which has a number of postings as well as links to the two deletion discussions should be probably deleted as well. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous nominations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom there is no notability as he wasn't even the oldest living person https://longeviquest.com/2023/03/mathew-beard-status-reclassification/ Scooby453w (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with any redirects that point to this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little confused though thus article had alreahd been deleted years ago only for the nominater to engage in an edit war by removing the re direct only to nominate the page for afd. What is the point? Scooby453w (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mathew Beard entry was not actually deleted but merely unhelpfully redirected, with the article itself still fully accessible via its history. As for the purported "edit war", this simple edit, which only served to append the AfD template, was mistakenly assumed to represent aggressive editing. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But then you could've just nominated the re direct for deletion then? Scooby453w (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upon entering the link Mathew Beard via its history, users are able to determine that it is not a standalone redirect that could be handled at WP:RfD, but a still-existing, albeit redirected, article, with an active Talk:Mathew Beard, that needed to be treated as an article, via submission to WP:AfD. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. – robertsky (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JT Pettigrew

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

Contested WP:PROD by Sophisticatedevening - subject does not seem to be notable per WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Basketball, United States of America, and Illinois. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just gonna paste my orginal PROD rationale since there were no changes (or edit summary) given after it was contested: Subject has never participated in any professional or collegiate sports, not enough WP:SIGCOV from independent sources to satisfy WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolcrab5000: Please don't draftify (or move to draftspace) this article while it is in AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article of which this discussion relates appears to have been deleted? Anxioustoavoid (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Maile66 just forgot to close. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 17:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me. I have un-deleted it. I think my deletion was an error on my part. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:TOOSOON given he has not even started playing in the NCAA yet. No evidence he meets WP:GNG. --Mpen320 (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability is present under WP:YOUNGATH. Let'srun (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable child basketball player. GNG fail. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a good chance Pettigrew never meets notability standards. He is not ranked as a recruit at all and is committed to a school that competes in what is considered a low-major conference. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church and Conversion

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

There do not appear to be any neutral, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the whole book about him there is sigcov for a solid two pages [77] also [78] Contemporary reviews [79] [80]... there appears to be a lot more [81]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: SIGCOV in varied RSs clearly evident. Looking at PARAKANYAA's assessment above, I think we should consider a speedy keep. Somewhat unrelated, but article is written quite poorly. @Terot: please consider spending more time in the drafting space before publishing an article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article only describes neutrally the content of the book, giving light about the author's central ideas. This is useful plainly to explain Chesterton's thought in his other works. I don't see how it would be reasonably necessary to show the aftermath of the book, or the possible flaws of his thinking in an encyclopedia article merely about one of his more personal autobiographical works, just to keep it in Wikipedia instead of deletion. Besides that, there are lots of neutral sources in various Chesterton biographies which will give more points of view. (Terot (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Well... if the book did have some sort of impact (negative or otherwise) then that would be something worth including in the article, as long as it was neutrally written and properly sourced. If it was something more discussed as an example then a long section about how people responded to Chesterton's work would be ill placed here - that would be a main article type of deal. But a sentence or two along the lines of "Historians and critics of his work saw it as an example of Chesterton's larger views on Catholicism... yadda yadda" would be fine.

I'll post on the article's talk page so that I don't derail the convo here too much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the coverage provided above, it has also been reviewed in New Blackfriars (here) and The Furrow (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews as identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xsnow

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Current article is unsourced. Sources that I have found are largely instructional on bloggish *nix sites (i.e. how to install xsnow) or are primary and cannot establish notability.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage from any reliable sources is found. The mentioned reference in article is primarily hence, mustn't considered. Hence, fails WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SIGCOV.

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 00:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

QSvn

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't been able to find any non-primary sources.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FileMan

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Many hits on Google Books: Some of them significant coverage: Medical Informatics Europe 85, Computerizing Large Integrated Health Networks, VA Practitioner. The last one is not fully readable but it seems SIGCOV, so I'm leaning keep on this one. --Mika1h (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Distributed Ruby

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple of sources and how-to books available that go into some depth about programming in ruby for distributed computing. However, notability is still weak as this program does not appear to be widely used for teaching and remains fairly niche. From an encyclopedic standpoint, there is not much more to say than this is a thing for distributed computing in ruby. Additional commentary appears likely to veer into how-to territory or a too-detailed look at the underpinnings of distributed ruby and wikipedia aims to do neither of these things.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ddoc

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found outside of primary sources specifically related to the D language. Sources are far too niche to be meet GNG standard. I would not recommend a redirect to D language in this case as the acronym DDOC has multiple meanings.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ELMAH

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not found any in-depth sources regarding ELMAH or how it is notable. It gets a fair number of mentions in sources focused on programming with asp.net, but it seems to be just one of many options for logging in that ecosystem. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:32, April 26, 2025

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even before addressing notability, Anonrfjwhuikdzz's vote recognizes that the page fails to even make a WP:credible claim of significance among many approaches to ASP.NET error logging. WP:NSOFT is merely advice applying WP:GNG. @Clenpr, per the advice you received on your talk page two days after this nom, please provide further justification when bringing software pages to AfD to clarify your research that the subject is non-notable, rather than simply establishing that the article is currently deficient (See WP:BEFORE). ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 18:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EAccelerator

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in non-primary sources. Most sources are just passing mentions. It's a way to accelerate PHP. Nothing worth noting beyond that. Many sources are how-to style and would not be appropriate for establishing a longer wiki article.
Keep it is a notable topic of old class IT just like any theorem or experiment. Providing some sources including subject books mentioning it here, [82] [83][84][85][86], requires their addition only. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like to have notability (to some extent), but it should add further references to support it more. 110 and 135 (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use some more references -- like those mentioned above. jp×g 🗯️ 04:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the refs cited above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:49, 9 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 00:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epydoc

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Old and now defunct software for generating documentation in python. Available sources are mostly primary (2004 presentation at Pycon, software website). Most detailed additional mention I can find is in a bachelor's thesis from 2019 which does not meet GNG/reliability guidelines. Other sources are passing mentions or brief descriptions.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EasyBeans

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete <10 academic sources from what I see with a quick search. Both scholarly sources and general sources appear to be primary. May have had some use in teaching, but widespread use does not seem common.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears not notable. Andre🚐 03:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OJ (programming tool)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NSOFT 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Currently the only rationale is violating WP:NSOFT which is an essay not a guideline. The original conference paper for this programming tool[87] (when it was named openjava) has been cited 293 times according to google scholar. There are additional sources indicating this has been the topic of instruction in university courses. It appears to be subject of focus in some schools at least: [88]] which could mean it "passes" NSOFT despite the delete votes claiming otherwise. Given WP:PRESERVE and the lack of appropriate deletion rationale, this article should be kept until better research is done in favor of deletion at the very least.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VSdocman

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing anything that would make this meet WP:GNG. The best source I found was here and that has a grand total of 57 words about it. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSOFT, WP:RS, some of the references in article are dead. Finding in search, doesn't get considerable sources to make it qualify for the article. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truss (Unix)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not finding reliable secondary sources that discuss the command in depth to meet GNG.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found some sources on Google, but most of them are just blog articles. Therefore, my vote is under the grounds of WP:NOTABLOG. JTZegers (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isurboi Protein

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

This reads like a resumé and provides no sources that actually discuss him, only articles which feature photos he modeled for. Searching myself (in English to be fair) I can find no sources whatsoever. His career seems fairly usual for a model, so I don't think there's a high likelihood sources exist at all. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Ghana. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like a resume. Format and writing may indicate use of AI, but I'm not sure. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is most likely AI created no reliable sources either Scooby453w (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:A7 since notability is clearly lacking, and cited sources do not even mention the subject in question. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly AI slop ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:A7, and more importantly, WP:NOTARESUME JTZegers (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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