Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 4

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      May 9 (Fri)      May 8 (Thu)      May 7 (Wed)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Association of Professional Design Firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Organization that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Organizations. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Business, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 28 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 23:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I couldn't find any sigcov in newspapers.com, pressreader, or google news/books/scholar and I don't see a clear merge/redirect target. Zzz plant (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCURLING. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkey. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only fails WP:NCURLING because we could never come up a criteria for the World Championships. But not only has Karagöz played at the World Championships, he was the skip (captain) of the Turkish team. I would imagine there must be some Turkish language sources that cover him.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of which have been identified, because it doesn't exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find significant coverage to demonstrate notability. Article subject appears to be a candidate in an election currently being tallied for Australian Parliament. Only source on the page as of nomination is a link to election results in progress. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article yesterday. There are now multiple sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC has declared her elected. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC currently says for me "72.6% counted, updated 17h ago. Emma Comer leads by 2,858 votes." While it's probable she will win, media houses have been wrong before. We lose nothing by waiting a few hours until the count is over. Valenciano (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes though the vote count is not complete most the new members of parliament have been confirmed elected. A number of seats are still outstanding as they are too close to call but Petrie is not one of them. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a projection by a media organisation until the count is over, so falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Valenciano (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ABC declares most MPs in the 2025 Australian federal election elected. The unconfirmed seats are on that page. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple organisations have now declared this candidate elected, including all major news organisations in Australia. There is a small chance that the incumbent may retain the seat, however this looks increasingly unlikely. I don't see any reason to delete the article as it will just need to be recreated next week. Activerbon (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that there are now Wikipedia pages for all candidates that have been projected as elected by the ABC, none of whom are facing deletion. See: Zhi Soon, Jess Teesdale, Madonna Jarrett and others. Activerbon (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggested a redirect, per WP:PRESERVED, as that can be quickly "unredirected" when the result is confirmed. The other cases you mention fall under that too per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is heading for keep and Comer will very likely be elected, so the point is moot. Valenciano (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Division of Petrie per WP:TOOSOON, with no prejudice against recreation if the candidate's election is confirmed. This seems to be a case of jumping the gun as Comer has a narrow lead of 3% with 72% counted. @Moondragon21 while your work on these is appreciated, it's better just to wait until their election is definitively confirmed before creating the articles. Valenciano (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Media calling of a race is generally good enough to determine a winner, we don't have to wait for certification. I'm pretty sure they'll be done counting by the time this closes anyway in case others want to redirect it, and we can reevaluate then if there's a suprise in the official count... Reywas92^Talk 23:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although the community has not formalised at the exact moment when a candidate passes WP:NPOL by leading the vote count in an election to an office that passes WP:NPOL, there is recognition a precedent that candidates pass WP:NPOL prior to taking office, and even before the official certification of the vote. While the creation of this page may be a bit premature, we should know (as Reywas92 suggests), the final results by the time this AFD closes. Alternatively, we could send the artcle to draft space. --Enos733 (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Enos733, for my own understanding in future, the wording of WP:NPOL states that politicians who have held international, national, or state/province-wide office are presumed to be notable. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV for this individual. Is anyone else able to find coverage or is presuming notability under this criterion enough? The note on NPOL says holding these office positions is a secondary criterion for notability. Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought we had a note in WP:POLOUTCOMES, but in general, there is both precedent and real-world considerations to consider that a candidate that has been elected (or at-least declared the winner), meets WP:NPOL prior to taking the oath of office. I remember an AFD of a candidate who died before taking office and the community consensus was to keep the article. The real-world consideration is that readers show increased interest in electoral winners (and there is usually a flurry of articles about the winner of an election - Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okie dokie, I appreciate it, thank you! Jiltedsquirrel 🌰 ^{(talk || contribs)} 22:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The ABC has called it and it is never wrong about these calls.--Grahame (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: The AEC website shows that Comer is the winner of the two candidate preferred vote count with 100.00% of ballot papers counted. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be precise, it doesn't say that 100% of papers have been counted. It says that 100% of the counted papers have been included in the Two Candidate Preferred (TCP) count. As of right now, no absent votes have been included, and not all of the provisional or postal votes. That said, if Antony Green (or Casey Briggs going forward) says she's elected, she probably is. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:NPOL, as Emma Comer has been elected to the Australian Parliament, a national legislative body. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has completed the vote count, confirming her election. Additionally, multiple independent and reliable sources have reported on her candidacy and election, satisfying the requirements of WP:GNG. Given the confirmed status and coverage, the article warrants retention. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Both the ABC and the AEC indicate that Comer is the winner of the seat of Petrie, as does every media outlet that I've seen. Even the postal votes, which might normally be expected to favour the incumbent, in this case are running in favour of Comer. Whilst it is true that the result has yet to be formally ratified, if we were to accept this methodology for Wikipedia articles, then technically there would be no Wikipedia reporting at all on the results of the 2025 election. Yes, the article is light on significant sources, although the relevant guideline emphasizes that this is an area where discretion needs to be exercised. Yes, biographical detail about Comer is also light, although this is an area where no doubt the article will be improved in time. Lismore287 (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Winner of the Petrie seat, passes WP:POLITICIAN. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It clearly passes the politician. Fade258 (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This appears to be a made up name and topic. Of the sources that have ever appeared in the article, it is attested to only in sources that trace the name back to this Wikipedia article, via https://oeis.org/A165255 . This is true both of the original topic of the article (primes of the form ${\displaystyle 2^{a}\pm 2^{b}\pm 1}$) and the new topic (as of this complete rewrite from 2017). The PROD was removed by an IP who pointed to [1], a work by Solinas that does not use the name "Solinas prime". Any encyclopedic content from the sources without the hoax name could be included at Mersenne_prime#Generalizations (which already cites this source). JBL (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  comment it seems there are a few mentions of this concept in the literature, e.g. [2] (I dont know how reputable Journal of Signal Processing Systems is but it seems reasonable to me) but most of the other ones are IEEE and abstracts, maybe someone with more training in mathematics could look whether this name is accepted in pure maths circles. It seems that at least some reviewers are not objecting to the name in engineering / signal processing. --hroest 16:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Mostly a violation of WP:NOPROMO and questionable whether WP:SUSTAINED notability is backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this is a situation where it looks like COI or possible UPE has created a highly promotional article on a notable artist. They meet criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST based on the museum collections they are in. However, he is not actually in all of the collections that are in the article, but enough, at least I think, to establish notability. Other collection references simply point to a bio or a press release about a show, and not to the actual collection source with the acquisition information and data. So it seems there is promo-puffery going on. I'm thinking that this may very well be a case where either a strong pruning back to a stub is necessary or a WP:TNT d*eletion would be in order. I'd like to hear from others in the visual arts to discuss before logging an !vote. Netherzone (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netherzone I have sorted through the collection claims. Please see Talk:Ahmed Mater#draft for collections section. No doubt the artist is notable. The article needs pruning. Hope to get back to it later this week. I did mark the some of the primary sources as "better source needed". More to do there too. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising your concerns. I’d like to offer some clarity and context, especially as the person who worked on earlier versions of the article. I understand that some parts of the previous version may have lacked perfect encyclopedic tone, and I fully accept responsibility for that. My intention, however, was not promotional. It was to document the life and practice of an artist I have studied closely for many years, and whose contributions to contemporary Arab and global art deserve careful contextualization.

I recognize now that the article may have fallen short of Wikipedia’s standards in tone or formatting, but the accusation of “promotional puffery” feels overly harsh. The references used were drawn from reputable museum archives, institutional press materials, and critical journalism—all of which are standard sources for artist biographies. If certain citations were weak, I would have welcomed collaborative improvement rather than wholesale deletion of verified content.

At this point, I am fully open to the suggestion of starting again from a properly sourced stub, especially since the current version is now reduced to little more than a name, birth date, and a list of collections—stripped of any real insight into the artist’s intellectual evolution, cultural impact, or thematic concerns. Such a skeletal version does not serve researchers, students, or even general readers trying to understand Ahmed Mater’s work or place in contemporary art.

An artist is not just a list of acquisitions. They are shaped by personal, social, and geographic histories—and they in turn shape the cultural fabric around them. This is how artists like Damien Hirst oe others , for example, are presented on Wikipedia—with attention to life story, artistic process, influence, and institutional recognition, all backed by sources. I believe Ahmed Mater deserves the same.

There is no shortage of credible English- and Arabic-language sources on this artist. What I ask is not to protect flawed content, but to collaboratively rebuild it in line with Wikipedia standards, and with respect for regional knowledge, history, and context.

––– ~~~~ Arif11 (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Arif11 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

• Comment oh, this is a mess...embedded links and conflation of exhibitions and collections. I think it can be pruned into an acceptable article, but need to return to it later in the week. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I started to do a little pruning. It may be useful to trim back to a short article or stub to get to the heart of the key biographic and career events. There is a lot of fluff, puffery and original research/synthesis that is not supported by RS. But I think it can be saved. Netherzone (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I completely understand the concern about embedded links, conflation between exhibitions and collections, and the need to distinguish clearly between permanent holdings and temporary shows. This is an important distinction, and I am happy to assist in clarifying and verifying these entries. Any original research or undue synthesis should be removed, and I agree that the use of reliable secondary sources is non-negotiable.

  While I accept that some previous content may have included unnecessary detail or tone inconsistencies, I would like to emphasize that the intent was not promotional but documentary—drawing from available references in both Arabic and English. My priority is to help build an accurate, well-sourced biography that meets Wikipedia’s standards and reflects the trajectory of a significant cultural figure.

  If trimming the article back to a stub is the best path forward, I fully support that—as long as the foundation remains strong and allows for thoughtful rebuilding. Thank you again for your efforts and fairness. Arif11 (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up. He meets WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Request to Restore the 2004 Image in the Infobox:

  https://ar.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Italo Disco&lang=en&q=%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:AHMED_MATER_SAUDIARABIA_2004.jpg

  I would like to request that the image titled File:AHMED_MATER_SAUDIARABIA_2004.jpg be reconsidered for inclusion in the infobox of Ahmed Mater’s article. This image, taken in 2004, is not merely an “early” or “dated” photograph—it holds strong cultural and historical relevance.

  As someone who has previously conducted academic research on Ahmed Mater’s early life and practice, I view this image as uniquely significant. It shows the artist in his home village in the Asir region, wearing a traditional floral headpiece—a longstanding custom among men in southern Saudi Arabia. This image reflects a deep sense of regional identity and heritage, which continues to echo across much of his conceptual work. In many ways, it embodies the intimate relationship between personal narrative and artistic expression in his career.

  The more recent image I added—which shows Mater preparing his Magnetism installation—is important for illustrating the technical and symbolic dimensions of his mature practice. I believe both images serve distinct documentary purposes: the older one as a visual record of his cultural and geographic roots; the newer one as evidence of his internationally recognized conceptual output.

  Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the 2004 image be restored to the infobox (as it encapsulates identity and memory), while the recent one could appear in a new section or gallery on his artistic works. Over time, I also plan to contribute more images related to specific works in accordance with Wikipedia’s guidelines.

  This request is not about aesthetics or preference—it is about preserving cultural memory and contextual continuity in the visual documentation of one of the Arab world’s most significant contemporary artists.

  ––– ~~~~ Arif11 (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. Does appear to meet WP:NARTIST. I'm willing to help out with the clean up as well. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist is notable and the fluff has been removed. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Netherzone and Se7enNationArmy2024 please take a look at the career section to see if it should be renamed or edited. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping. When I find the time in the next few days, I'll go thru the career section to check the text against the sources themselves (because I found quite a lot of OR and puffery that wasn't in the association source at all). Let me know if you have already done so, @WomenArtistUpdates for that section, and if not I'll tackle that. Netherzone (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone, Yes please review career section against sources if you can. It does have a tinge of malarkey to it. I ran out of gas after the exhibitions and collections review. Thanks! --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! And I did find a lot of malarky that was not in the sources. Netherzone (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It look so much cleaner now after what you've done! I am leaning towards changing the section name slightly to reflect that it is his art career as opposed to being generalized as it is currently. He's described several times in sources as physician-turned-artist so creating that distinction in the section title would provide added clarity. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies. I forgot to include a ping. @WomenArtistUpdates. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I can clearly see that this Wikipedia article on Mater provides comprehensive information about his life, career, and works and also given the depth of coverage and the presence of reliable and independent sources. So, Ahmed Mater's Wikipedia article is considered notable and also noticed that one ref is generated through AI. Fade258 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which ref is generated through AI? Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reference 19 which is in orange colour, well I am not 100% sure whether the reference is AI generated or not but when I move the cruser on that reference that shows AI generated article. Fade258 (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, I see it as a green link with an embedded orange over NPR that says it's AI slop upon rolling over the link. I think this is a script error of some sort. Because when I read the source itself, it's an actual transcript from a recorded six minute segment from National Public Radio. So I think that source is OK to keep in the article. Netherzone (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think that may be the script error and also I have reviewed the information mentioned in that reference and found that have been written in well format and neutral point of view. Thank You for addressing this. Fade258 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fagner (footballer, born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Looks like a WP:SPORTCRIT/WP:GNG failure. Only played 122 minutes in Japan and has no usable sources in that Wikipedia. Returned to Brazil to only be a bit-part player there too. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There are only sources about his time at PSTC, too little for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not finding anything that establishes notability. Doesn't seem to have a page in Portuguese which is where I would go to try to learn more. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks RSes, therefore does not meet standards of WP:SIGCOV. Not notable enough for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nominator's statement. It's much number of reliable sources with WP: SIGCOV to ensure its notability. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP of an activist and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing inclusion criteria.
The attempted notability claim as a politician is that she was the first out LGBTQ candidate in a provincial election in her province, while the notability claim as an activist is that she was one of the several people who challenged Saskatchewan's marriage laws in the short time between Halpern and the Civil Marriage Act. But as always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and have to show that they were already notable for other reasons independently of the candidacy.
However, the "first LGBTQ candidate" thing is completely unreferenced and unverified (and note that we have seen more than one case in the past of people who were claimed as "first member of X minority group to do a thing" who turned out, upon investigation, to have been preceded by other people the article's creator just hadn't heard of, so we can't just take random internet users' word for it without sourcing), so that's not an instant notability freebie that would exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG on her sourcing — and it's questionable whether it would even be all that historically significant even if it were verifiable, given that her province had already elected at least two out LGBTQ municipal councillors (and one MLA who admittedly wasn't out at the time but came out later) before her.
Meanwhile, the same-sex marriage lawsuit is referenced solely to a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a magazine article about the overall case, rather than any significant coverage devoted specifically to her own personal role in it, and the rest of the referencing here consists entirely of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. And, for added bonus, none of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit have Wikipedia articles at all (not even the one who was also one of the city councillors whose time in office preceded White's campaign), and this article does absolutely nothing to demonstrate that White was somehow more individually notable than any of the others. And even on a WP:BEFORE search, about all I can find is a small blip of WP:BLP1E coverage upon her recent reception of an award that still isn't highly meganotable enough to confer an instant notability freebie in and of itself on a person who's otherwise poorly sourced.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a stronger notability claim, and better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• keep it seems this is the same person that got this award? It seems just this Governor General's Awards would make her pass GNG. It also seems like she is notable for In 2021, Nicole’s tireless advocacy during her pregnancy resulted in the removal of the requirement for parents to be biologically related to be listed on their child’s birth certificate, aptly named “Alice’s Law” in honour of her daughter. I also think the profile in Sasktoday is enough for WP:RS. --hroest 16:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Passing GNG requires quite a bit more than just one reliable source, and the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case is not the same thing as the high-level Governor General's Awards in literature or the performing arts. It would be a valid notability claim if the article were well-sourced, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to have a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I think this is the same person [3], but it alone isn't enough for notability. Rest of the sources now in the article aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I did some further analysis on this subject and the main news stories over the last few years: [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11][12][13] and of these I believe the following have WP:SIGCOV in a WP:RS:

three in-depth profiles, one of which is the subject (CBC)

in depth profile in CKOM

In-depth profile in Sasktoday

-- overall I see 10 news articles in RS that quote her / interview her of which there are three which contain in-depth profiles of her specifically. Together with the awards, three good sources and a bunch of other mentions/interviews should be more than enough for GNG. --hroest 12:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people can show enough local human interest coverage in their own hometown media to claim that they passed WP:GNG, without actually having any meaningful notability claim that would be expected to enshrine them in an international encyclopedia for posterity — so GNG doesn't just count the number of media hits you can find on a person, and also takes into account the context of what that coverage is being given for. Sources that quote or interview her, for example, are not support for notability, per WP:INTERVIEWS, so most of those links aren't doing anything to help — and of the three you identified as the most substantive, they amount to local human interest coverage in Saskatoon, and aren't supporting anything that would constitute a nationalized or internationalized notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not claim notability beyond her province, however there is no requirement for national prominence to pass WP:GNG. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable media which means we have the basis to write an article about her that is based on solid information. Here we have three relatively high quality and in-depth profiles of her in reputable outlets. Furthermore, it is clear that she had a significant role to play in the advancement of LGBTQ rights in her province, being at the core of 2 legal battles for civil rights. Personally I find that interesting and worthy of preservation for the future. --hroest 21:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Sasktoday article is the best of the profiles provided by hroest. There is no question that the subject is interesting, but interesting is not sufficient for a stand-alone page. Also, passing WP:GNG is "not a guarantee" and "editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page." --Enos733 (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As well as the coverage identified above by hroest, I've so far found coverage of her in newspapers from states other than Saskatchewan, from 2004-2021, including a profile in the Ottawa Citizen in 2013 [14], as well as coverage in Alberta and Toronto newspapers of her work getting donations of menstrual supplies to northern Saskatchewan communities and coverage in BC and Ontario of her same-sex marriage case. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Unfortunately the proposed deletion was removed, which i didn't expected for such an obscure article, but this star is not brighter than Mv +6 and is not in the HR catalogue as well, hence does not pass the first criterion. 21 Andromedae (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – it could be redirected to List of stars in Aquarius, where it is already included as 'IZ Aqr'. Most of the key information is already there, except the distance is off a bit. Praemonitus (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No sources are suitable. Not notable . BigManBiggerFrog (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Jamaica, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, no reliable sources found online. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NACTOR. Only significant credit appears to be Destiny (2014 film), but that doesn't have an article yet, so this can't redirect there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see reliable, independent sources about Colie or her performances. The film Destiny is not even listed in the Box Office Mojo site. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article does not meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. While Sabrina Colie has acting credits in films such as Destiny (2014) and Art Machine (2012), there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide in-depth information about her career. The available references, including a review from Flush the Fashion, offer limited mention and do not establish notability. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacks RS citations to support it. To note upon a quick web search though have yet to find RS. finding lots of hits from social media platforms mostly.Villkomoses (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article needs more secondary RSes to show notability enough to warrant inclusion. If there are more RSes that present themselves, I can be persuaded but at the moment this does not meet WP:GNG Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, lack of reliable sources with significant coverage to establish its notability. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page no have sources and this page just for fun,Brhaui peoples known as Baloch and Balochistani himself for that see Dr. Mahrang Baloch from langove tribe with Brahui ethnolinguistic and was Born in Mangocher of Kalat zone that in this article nominated for imaginary Brahuistan But she never said that she is from Brahuistan and never said Brahuistan is a region She also known her as a Baloch and Balochistani and never was a region with Brahuistan name in Khanate of Kalat documents Moshtank (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks!

  Moshtank (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – A well sourced article from published works though it has a couple of citation needed tags. The nominator's claims "This page no have sources and this page just for fun" is in WP:POV fashion and their refer to Mahrang Baloch is completely irrelevant here for the nomination cause. It seems they have not done WP:BEFORE or may be (as a new user) they are not aware of it. MŠLQr (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mahrang Baloch is a Celebrities of Brahui Ethnolinguistic people

  She is from Langove tribe with Brahui language and from Brahui Ethnolinguistic

  Also she was born in Mangocher of Kalat Zone

  She everytime said Brahui and Baloch are same

  No one in reality said Brahuistan and no official documents for this just in Social media we saw Brahuistan imaginary

  Moshtank (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In 2nd source Brahvi are Baloch

  and in the las Paragraph of people section we saw "Brahvi speaking tribe and its last tribe in list is lango of Mahrang Baloch tribe

  In 3nd source just talked about Brahui Linguistics group

  In 4nd and 5nd no have word as Brahuistan

  In 6nd source just contained peoples by Mother tongues

  And no thing in sources for Brahuistan

  Moshtank (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a little bit and redirect to Brahui people. There are mentions of it being a proposed name when the British took over and one or two sources claiming there's a movement to create it, but not much more than that. Far WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep – This is a well sourced article from published works although it could be improved upon. Abstrakt (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Source are well but don't words in the sources with Brahuistan name include

  Moshtank (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep – The rationale for deletion by the nominee reads more like WP:JDL. The article contained four RS, I have added another. Rest of their arguments are WP:OR. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Added 2 more archived references from the Government of Pakistan and the Government of Balochistan to the article. The language names 'Brahui', 'Brahvi' or 'Brohi' are interchangeable, as we know. This article is already well sourced with many reliable sources now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We know Brahui is a Balochi language but no people with Brahui people name and no one region with Brahuistan name

  Brahui just is an ethnolinguistic peoples and them are actually Baloch people

  Read the sources please!

  Moshtank (talk) 07:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: The article on Brahuistan is well-sourced. The article cites reliable sources, including academic publications and census data. Unclasp4940 (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep: The article has all the reliable data and is well needed. Athoremmes (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Census data is for Brahui Language not for a region with Brahuistan name

  Moshtank (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that all languages are spoken by people and Brahui language is spoken by Brahui people. Brahuistan region within Balochistan province of Pakistan is generally called 'Brauhistan'. Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan population census data and table shows (this reference is included in the above article). This TABLE shows population by Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Brahvi and other languages. Is the nominator trying to cause confusion here?...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not saying that there is no such thing as the Brahui language; this language is one of the languages of the Baloch people. In the city of Pishin in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province, there are also people whose mother tongue is Brahui. So, should Pishin also be considered part of Brahuistan?

Just look at the famous figures throughout Balochistan—many among them have Brahui as their mother tongue. Not one of these individuals has ever said, 'I am not Baloch, I am Brahui,' or 'I am not from Balochistan, I am from Brahuistan.'

I will also send you a list of individuals for your research so that you can see for yourself:

Dr. Mehrang Baloch – Founder of Baloch Yakjeghti Kamiti, born in the town of Manguchar in the Kalat region. His mother tongue is Brahui, and he belongs to the Langou tribe, one of the members of the Brahui Confederacy.

Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch – Founder of the Baloch Students Organization and currently an armed fighter against the Government of Pakistan. He was born in the Awaran region of Balochistan, his mother tongue is Brahui, and he comes from the Mohammad Hassani tribe, another member of the Brahui Confederacy.

Haji Abdul Karim Brahui – Minister of Border Affairs in the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. He was born in Nimroz, Afghanistan, with Brahui as his mother tongue and his surname clearly confirming it. He always asserts that there is no division between Brahui and Baloch: we are Baloch Brahui.

All the Khans of the Kalat Khanate – They belong to the Kumberani tribe and are descendants of Mir Ibrahim Khan Kumberani, the founder of this confederacy, which was later known as the Brahui Confederacy. This family has always identified itself as Baloch, and in no documents does the name “Brahuistan” appear, nor have they ever regarded themselves as a distinct ethnicity separate from the Baloch.

Now, let’s consider: who is the one saying “Brahuistan”? This is the work of the enemies of the Baloch people. Although I do not wish to delve too deeply into the details of this topic, we must ask ourselves: when people consider themselves Baloch and from Balochistan, and speak a mother tongue that all Baloch acknowledge as one of their own, how can outsiders come along and claim, ‘No, you are not Baloch,’ when these people, as well as the rest of the Baloch, recognize them as Baloch? How can others have the right to decide that you are not Baloch?

Moshtank (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must see this Bolan Voice a summary from Baloch Nationalism its Origin and Development Book By Taj Mohammad Breseeg, in this summary wrote about Brahui and others Balochi languages like Saraiki and others

And The author's claim can be seen in Baloch nationalism, where Dr. Mahrang Baloch and Dr. Allah Nazar Baloch, despite having Brahui as their mother tongue and belonging to tribes that may be referred to as Brahui by outsiders, stand at the forefront of Baloch nationalism.

Moshtank (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Requested by individual Maomulma (talk) 06:18, 18 April 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 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - I am not sure what the reason for deletion is? Is it the person the article that this article is about saw it, and now wants it deleted? Is it a bot that made this deletion request? I've never seen a nomination like this on Wikipedia. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, Kenya, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: According to whom? I see nothing on this article's talk page. I see nothing on the nom's talk page or the creator's talk page. Short of the subject dropping a verified UTRS request (or a substantive challenge to the subject's notability), there are no grounds to sustain a deletion, and the nom has failed to make one. Ravenswing 21:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I presume that the subject himself wants the article deleted? Is there evidence of this? However, I see a substantial GS profile with an h-index of 49 which easily clear WP:NPROF but the article does have some issues and needs cleanup, but I do not see a reason for deletion. --hroest 20:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - without clear and convincing evidence of the subject's wishes, it's merely speculation. If this were a child or an associate professor, then I would go along with deletion. He's fairly notable. We're an encyclopedia, not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems like a nice chap, but not notable.

The external sources are two 20-year-old listicles that mention him in passing alongside a number of acts that don’t have their own pages, the rest are his own website/tweets/self-produced content.

No clear evidence of charting songs/awards/other significant recognition.

His most popular songs & videos never cracked 100,000 views on YouTube, with the majority below 1,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marchantiophyta (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 April 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 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He went on to lead the group MJ Hibbett & the Validators. AllMusic staff written album reviews here, here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:MUSICBIO#1. As well as the Allmusic coverage cited above, and the references presently in the article, there's an RS critical review from the BBC here, and many hits on ProQuest such as this one. ResonantDis_tortion 23:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The archive lacks significant independent coverage establishing notability beyond its existence as a university collection. Most sources are affiliated with UCSC. Mooonswimmer 16:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found some mentions in sources (not already cited in the article) such as the book Ink on the Tracks: Rock and Roll Writing, the 2015 article The Grateful Dead Archive in Music Reference Services Quarterly, or the book Reading the Grateful Dead: A critical survey. I suggest demoting the article to a stub, incorporate these sources, and update it with newer information. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 27 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 18:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have been able to find multiple sources with SIGCOV, though I agree the article needs an update. There is in depth coverage of the archive's provenance in local news: [15]. Also coverage of the archive museum in SFGate: [16]. The Atlantic article on the potential value of the archive to scholars studying Grateful Dead culture: [17]. More from NPR about the potential value of the archive: [18].

I have to imagine there is at least one Deadhead editor on Wikipedia that would be willing to update this article. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to be a brand-specific promotional fork of African black soap. Almost all the references are about black soap itself, and this page routinely uses general black soap references to make specific claims about the brand. Thought about g11 speedy delete but this one looks just real enough to possibly escape a speedy delete. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly notable. I can find many sources that are not included in the article. Shoerack (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried, mostly what I was finding were product pages but in the last few months Google has changed their algorithm so if you search for something that can be bought, you’ll only see product listings. Mind sharing some of what you found? If this passes GNG I’ll withdraw it. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 20:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources like 1 and 2 provide enough coverage to establish notability for the soap. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The first source you listed is more about black soap generally, the author just used dudu-osun specifically. Without a broader context, i.e. comparison to other black soaps, this does not rise to the level of a product review that can establish notability in my opinion. For instance, this could not be used to establish notability of the manufacturer under the guidelines of WP:PRODUCTREV. The second article is focused on lotion, not the soap with only brief reference to the soap it does not really meet the definition of SIGCOV for establishing GNG. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with your assessment. Source #1 reads: I did some research and ordered a bar of what appeared to be the best basic brand out there — Tropical Naturals Dudu Osun Black Soap.; so this satisfies PRODUCTREV#1 and same goes for two and the third article I found also. While not a policy, three sources are usually used to establish GNG. I would also love to add that the authors are talking about African black soap with Dudu-Osun as an example (PRODUCTREV?). I wouldn’t want it to seem like I’m bludgeoning the process but I just the clarification is needed. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 01:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This from Legit.ng and two other sources found by Ambrosiawater is enough to satisfy notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this article should be treated with great caution for establishing notability. Most of its claims about the soap are not verifiable. About 1/2 of the bullet points are not about the brand of soap either, but African black soaps more generally. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to African black soap. I have not been able to find clearly reliable sources that discuss this specific product in depth. Most discuss African black soaps more generally. This seems to be the most accessible African black soap to writers in Europe or the US making it a bit of a default choice. Unless articles with WP:SIGCOV discussing this specific soap in the context of soaps/African black soaps can be found it would be best to redirect.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m sorry and I don’t want to sound uncivil but this doesn’t make sense: “This seems to be the most accessible African black soap to writers in Europe or the US making it a bit of a default choice.”. A product that is being used as a landmark is not notable enough to you? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 01:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to African black soap. Agree with the above, and with nom's assessment that this is a promotional pov-fork. -- asilvering (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - [19] [20] and [21] meets WP:PRODUCTS with precedent for brand articles like Lux Soap [[22]] and WP:GNG for coverage on these sites (Pulse Nigeria, Legit.ng, and Good Health Academy). Editz2341231 (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more explicit source analysis would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more explicit analysis of sources that are available. Source (4) in the article and the article from Refinery29 [23] are probably best for determining notability as both are from well-established sources with known editorial practices.

Sources in the article:

(1) About black soap generally, no mention of product.

(2) About black soap generally, no mention of product.

(3) Dead link

(4) Short video documenting manufacture of soap largely based on interview with leader of Dudu-Osun. As its an interview information is not entirely independent of the primary source and I would not want to use this to establish notability.

(5) Site appears to be dead. Archived about page indicates that this is a product price/review website. Appears to be/have been chournalistic in nature and probably not reliable.

(6) Dead link, not archived. Domain appears to have new owner.

(7) Already discussed my opinions above. On a re-read, I am less convinced this article is discussing the brand specifically at all even though Dudu Osun is capitalized throughout (see bullet point 3: "You can easily prepare black soap at home. You don’t need to have much money or some special talent to make Dudu Osun soap. . ." Some claims in the article are false (e.g. it is not dangerous because it is made of only natural products --- there are plenty of natural products that are exceptionally dangerous to humans).

(8) Not about the product but black soap more generally.

(9) Youtube source/unreliable.

(10) Manufacturer source/cannot be used for notability

(11) Manufacturer source/cannot be used for notability

(12) Reseller product listing, not secondary + just relists information from manufacturer.

(13) Wordpress blog/unreliable and cannot be used for establishing notability.

Additional sources from this AfD discussion:

[24] As I noted before, the 2nd source listed by amrosiawater is not about the soap, it is about a lotion with the same name.

[25] This article is too brief to establish notability of Dudu-osun in my opinion. No comparison to other soaps generally or African black soaps specifically making it difficult to recommend Dudu-Osun for its own article rather than incorporation into existing articles on African black soaps and/or the parent company.

[26] I cannot establish the reliability of this source, though it does cover the soap in depth. Given it appears to be affiliate-link funded and accepts review submissions it should be treated with caution.

[27] The refinery29 review is probably the best article for establishing notability. that said, as I pointed out earlier, there is a lack of comparison to other African black soaps that would indicate this particular brand is notable enough to deserve its own article. To quote the reason why Dudu-Osun was chosen: "I did some research and ordered a bar of what appeared to be the best basic brand out there — Tropical Naturals Dudu Osun Black Soap. To be fair, all black African soap is pretty basic --- this does not make Dudu-Osun seem notable or a "landmark" to me: it was simply the most accessible in 2014.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: emphasis mine on the last comment. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your analysis on the sources. I believe the 8th source you listed is a good course. I'm leaning more on a keep of the article based on that source and the refinery29 source. But, would you happen to know why source 8 would be affiliate-link funded? Editz2341231 (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm going to list out sources that I found myself. Apologies if I repeated some already.

I have found the actual website of the soap itself [28]

I've found some other information about the soap [29], [30] [31][32][33] and [34]. Source 7 has 3 bullet points on the product explaining it briefly. Not sure if you can fully trust it though without a credible author.

A review for the soap here [35]

That's all that I can find. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The goodhealthacademy article says at the top that it may contain affiliate links, and there is a link to the product on amazon near the end. The reason I say these should be treated with caution is that the author(s) have an incentive to focus on positives to generate revenue from affiliate purchases.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So, could there be a chance that these sources might be legit? Editz2341231 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From the actual website of the soap itself, they have a sub about their story [36] Editz2341231 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to African black soap. These sources do not come anywhere close to a pass under WP:NPRODUCT, where the notability guidelines are quite clear that we need deep significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. A source that says For being intensely cleansing, exfoliating and natural, the black soap; this time 'Dudu Osun' makes a great pick, check on why with a big brand picture included in the article is not going to be independent. None of these articles are clearly independent, and neither do they have the deep significant coverage that we require for companies and their products. A review of WP:IS might be called for, because what we would be looking for is something that shows why this product is notable, not articles written or placed by marketing professionals in popular press. This is a POVFORK of black soap. All the sources above that are independent are talking about black soap. Per the NPRODUCT guidelines, we should redirect this product page to there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The product itself has its own website. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Which we will definitely not promote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The website itself shares their story on the product. Editz2341231 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Highly promotional bio; subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are a mix of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE official bios ([37], [38]) press releases from his organization ([39]) and a few churnalism articles about his organization (not WP:SIGCOV of him that read like press releases ([40], [41], [42], [43]), and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([44]). A WP:BEFORE search turns up some more content, all of it highly promotional and likely to be based on press releases. For example, this one is described as press release by GhanaWeb and reprinted in ModernGhana with promotional fluff like In a tale woven with accolades, Siita Sofo Prince...emerges as a catalyst for change and empowerment. And this article in DailyGuideNetwork is also reprinted in ModernGhana, with similar over-the-top statements and apparently based entirely on quotes from the subject. All told, I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV of the subject that I can confidently say is independent of him and in reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ghana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yip. Seems to be based on X of Y notability (in this case 40 under 40) which is a false premise and thats provided enough to spin an article up. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 03:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biography of an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as having any strong notability claim.
As always, unsuccessful candidates for political office are not notable on that basis per se, and get articles only if they can be properly demonstrated to have established notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article on those other grounds anyway -- but this basically just says that he had a law career without saying anything about it that would constitute a meaningful notability claim as a lawyer, and is "referenced" solely to his paid-inclusion obituary in the local newspaper rather than any meaningful reliable source coverage about him and his work.
A prior deletion discussion in 2011 landed "keep" on the grounds of claims that he had sufficient RS coverage to pass WP:GNG, but the sources brought to bear in that discussion consisted entirely of sources that namechecked him, mostly as a party spokesman providing soundbites to the media in articles about the party, rather than being about him in any meaningful sense -- but we've long since deprecated that type of sourcing as not contributing to notability, and none of it ever actually found its way into the article at all anyway.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it, but we need to see sources in which he's the subject of the coverage, not just sources that quote him as a spokesman, to deem him as passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails in WP:NPOL and lacks WP:V. Svartner (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• comment he is described as a prominent Alberta Liberal and he was on the board (?) of Air Canada, however I could not find an obituary in regional newspapers as one would expect for such a "prominent" figure. It seems he was never elected in the party or party leader, but head of many internal committees. --hroest 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a smalltown (pop. 6K) municipal councillor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, politicians at the local/municipal level of office are not inherently notable just for existing, and have to show a substantial volume and depth of reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to demonstrate a reason why they should be considered special cases of more nationalized significance than most other municipal councillors -- but this essentially just states that he exists, and is referenced almost entirely to sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of the town council and his own campaign, and a single glancing namecheck of his existence in an article about the municipal budget vote.
The only source that's actually both independent and about Mike Hanly is a single profile in a minor community newspaper, which isn't enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only substantive source he's got.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass NPOL #2 on a lot more substance and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am in agreement with the nomination and will note that I checked the newspapers in Category:Newspapers published in Edmonton and found no coverage that would meet WP:GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a councillor in a small town is not notable, certainly not as a politician. PKT(alk) 16:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Delete per nom.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-notable swimmer. No sources beyond profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No evidence of WP:BEFORE. A search brings up SIGCOV such as this, paywalled stories that are almost certainly SIGCOV such as this, and it is very, very likely that a world championship swimming medalist in the offline era will have further coverage in German newspaper archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The links posted above basically link to the same story with the same title ("Schwimmer Christian Geßner war für ein paar Stunden Republik-Flüchtling", or in machine translation "Swimmer Christian Geßner [Gessner] was a refugee from the Republic for a few hours") which is about their missing a flight and being thought to have defected from the East Germany. The piece is one of those narrative-with-comments-from-the-subject stories where the author clear spoke to the journalist writing the story. If that were all there was I'd lean weak-delete, but I see there's also a Munziger bio that appears to be referencing a news article. The Spiegel piece referred to in the Munziger bio is a one-paragraph mention of Gessner. Neues Deutschland had an interview with Gessner, but given that this was the party mouthpiece it is not exactly a reliable source. None of these is the kind of solid SIGCOV that I'd like to see for an article but there does at least seem to be biographical detail in them beyond the usual stats. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Swimming at the 1991 European Aquatics Championships#200 m individual medley where his name is mentioned and he won the highest, silver medal. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sources for this article seem to refer back to this article (i.e. an aggregated google book) – might make more sense to merge to one of the team pages if doesn't seem worth a delete. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Hong Kong. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is one source to support this article and it is a dead link. This one is a no-brainer. This does not meet the WP:GNG and should be removed unless more RSes can be provided.
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No claim to notability outside of his 8 matches in the second tier of Belarus and no evidence of WP:GNG being met. Sport.ua only has 2 sentences about him and my own searches in Belarusian, Ukrainian and Russian (Хмелюк Игорь) yielded no decent results. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belarus, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Searching cyrillic/russian sources I found only this semi-dubious source remarking on Khmelyuk play. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 16:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This lacks any sort of significant coverage or notability. If more sources can be provided, I am open to changing my mind. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A duplicate exists at Draft:ARV Loshan Sports already. I can't find any independent, reliable sources discussing ARV Loshan Sports and the article creator appears to have a strong COI. The YouTube channel has a reasonable subscriber count but it needs significant coverage from independent sources to be considered notable enough for Wikipedia. No evidence of a WP:GNG pass. I've reviewed the newly added references and none of them demonstrate notability. The 'example.com' reference doesn't even work. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Sports, Internet, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the Tamil Media Weekly source doesn't work for me. It tries to take me to arvloshan.com, which doesn't exist as a domain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – ARV Loshan Sports is a notable Tamil-language sports media platform, widely followed in the Tamil-speaking community, especially among Sri Lankan and Indian sports fans. It has been operating for over 5 years, and its founder Ragupathy Vaamalosanan is a veteran media personality with more than 30 years in radio broadcasting. The platform is regularly cited in independent sports news reports and has gained recognition through social media and regional media outlets.
  I have added reliable sources to the article, including coverage in facebook and instagram mostly youtube. The subject passes Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Niroshanraja (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook, Instagram and YouTube are not independent sources. They are user-generated content. If you can provide reliable news sources discussing ARV Loshan Sports in detail then I'll reconsider. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:GNG - social media channels, such as Facebook and YouTube, are not considered reliable sources. The Tamil news link is broken, so can't be considered, and the ARV Loshan Sports website is a primary source (not independent) if the link was working. Dan arndt (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: I left a COI alert on User talk:Niroshanraja, the editor who created this article. Several editors have mentioned that concern (as do I). DMacks (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatantly AI-generated. According to the article, as of [date], there is limited coverage in mainstream or national media, which affects its notability under Wikipedia guidelines. This seems like a fair assessment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible. In all of my years here this has to be the first time that I've seen an article actually state its own lack of notability! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Even the article says its not notable. So.... -UtoD 10:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not speedy Even though the article's creator and main content-contributor seem to state it is not notable, please let this stand as a regular AFD (no prejudice against SNOW). Too many attempts, page-moves, and COI problems to let a future recreation simply slip past unimpeded. DMacks (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. Battleofalma (talk)
• Delete: I checked to see if sufficient sources existed that an article could be written about this subject, properly and without the use of an LLM, but I'm not seeing anything at all that would be helpful. The AI's evaluation of itself is correct here. Perhaps someday this will be notable, but certainly not right now. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No notable wrestler. Worked for 2 years as develoment talent. No enough in-deep coverage around her from reliable sources, just WP:ROUTINE results. Since she retired, the article will be no larger. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing notable about her career especially as a professional wrestler. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the wrestler doesn't meet GNG. Sports career or media coverage cannot help here. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No indication of notability or evidence of SIGCOV, which is understandable given her very, very short career. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person's career is in its infancy and the lack of WP:SIGCOV reflects this. I am sure the sources will develop overtime as his career develops but this is definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No notable tag team. Worked on independent level, no enough in-deep coverage from reliable sources, just WP:ROUTINE results [63] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WXW Diamond Division Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable pro wrestling title. Just a regional title, no coverage from reliable sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Wrestling. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this isn't even the top womens wrestling championship for this promotion. Fails GNG.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources are all primary while a BEFORE didn't come up with anything much better. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, Ohio, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The article on Jacob Goodall lacks sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. While he has participated in collegiate and lower-division professional soccer, there is no significant coverage that establishes lasting notability. The existing references are primarily routine sports announcements and do not provide in-depth analysis or recognition of his impact in the sport. Without substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, the article does not satisfy the criteria for notability and should therefore be deleted.Maltuguom (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This requires more RSes to support inclusion. The sources provided do not show the notability required to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined G3. This appears to be original research. I can't find a mention of a "Bajgora offensive" anywhere. The author of this article claims that two of the sources mention a "Bajgora offensive", but I can't find those mentions via translation, and certainly not an offensive that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt necessarily mention "bajgora offensive" thats the name i put since the sources call it an offensive in the bajgora region.If the issue is the name I understand im willing to change the name to whatever fits.It wasnt 1 offensive which lasted that long but a chain of Yugoslav offensives towards KLA held villages in the region of Shala e Bajgores.Many events of the Kosovo War arent that well documented and therefore dont have exact titles but Wiki editors give ones that fit well.Like with the Incident in Lez,Battle of Glanasela,and the Llapusha-Drenica front pages.But these events happened and arent hoaxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 08:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti: Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarize the secondary literature, not to synthesize the literature to develop new ideas. This article asserts that there is something called the "Bajgora offensive" that occurred from 10 July 1998 to 12 January 1999. That means that there should be sources in the secondary literature that describe such an offensive with those dates. Since those don't appear to exist, neither should this article. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It mentions chains of offensives between those dates.The first being on the 10th of July in Mazhiq then ending in January 12th in Bare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 17:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti: Please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. You can't decide that those two dates are significant and dub it an "offensive". As others have already explained to you regarding your edits, that is original research. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does look like original research and synthesis of material; combining different events and self-titling it. I think there's also the issue of whether just because something happened, if it's worthy of an article (WP:EVENT). Unfortunately, there is a strong pattern in the Balkans area at the moment of editors creating poor or POV articles about "battles", "ambushes", "offensives" etc. mainly in order to show a "victory" point for their side, and I think that there needs to be stronger admin intervention on this. --Griboski (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article creator has essentially conceded above that this article is WP:OR, and even ignoring that, passing mentions in sources documenting longer conflicts don't pass WP:GNG. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't believe this is an intentional hoax or an article created in bath faith, but I believe it's a case of WP:OR. There's no coverage of the alleged offensive as a cohesive operation in reliable secondary sources (or any sources, really, including in Albanian). The whole article appears to be an original synthesis of multiple engagements grouped under a self-assigned title, as stated above. Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti, do you understand how this is original research? Mooonswimmer 07:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Data Warehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Citations show no significant coverage of this defunct website. Reliable sources sometimes use the site's data: "According to the College Football Data Warehouse...". But I cannot find any sources that offer WP:SIGCOV of the website itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This was one of the largest and most reliable sources of statistical information on the history of college football (and it remains accessible through the Internet Archives). Major news outlets long relied on it as a "go to" source for historical information on the sport. E.g., Chicago Tribune (reviewing CFDW's findings on the use of interim head coaches), The Montgomery Advertiser (dscussing CFDW's use of the National Championship Foundation to reconstruct history and choose national champions); The New York Times, USA Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer. Cleveland Plain Dealer, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Vancouver Sun, The Orlando Sentinel. As set forth in the article, CFDW has also been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals. Further, a review at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Reliable sources confirmed: "Not only has this website has proven time and again to be a reliable source of information, but it is maintained by an established expert on the topic and is relevant to the field." Given how widely cited the database is, it would do a disservice to Wikipedia to delete the information that has been developed about its background, its creators, and its unfortunate demise. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Those citations provide barely any coverage of the website, let alone significant coverage.

  These are the complete mentions of CFDW in those sources:

  • "There have been 30 interim head coaches in the 65 top-tier programs in these covetous, volatile 2010s, tallied in a detailed study of the College Football Data Warehouse"
  • "What is the 'National Championship Foundation?' It's a service used by the College Football Data Warehouse to try and reconstruct history and choose 'national champions,' particularly back in the old days when polls from different news services yielded significantly different results."
  • “In the old days, when you had one team going to one bowl and another team going to another bowl, you were more likely to have split national champions,” said David DeLassus, a proprietor of the website College Football Data Warehouse. (...) Perhaps for that reason, DeLassus said that he preferred the current Playoff for a different reason entirely. “I like more football,” he said. “If there’s more football being played, then I get to watch more games.”
  • "Source: College Football Data Warehouse"
  • SOURCE: "College Football Data Warehouse"
  • "As recognized by College Football Data Warehouse"
  • "Source: Reuters, College Football Data Warehouse, The Philadelphia Inquirer, MCT Photo Service"
  • "Source: College Football Data Warehouse"

  The only information that can be gleaned from any of those sources comes from the New York Times piece: that CFDW is a "website" and that David DeLassus is a proprietor.

  WP:SIGCOV states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

  These are all trivial mentions at best. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources provided by cbl62 appear to contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV of the website to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

  Where are you seeing WP:SIGCOV in those sources? The citations only say that "College Football Data Warehouse" was used as a source for each article. They contain basically no details at all about CFDW itself. PK-WIKI (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFDW is a major information repository/resource. It has not only been cited regularly as a reliable source by major media outlets, scholarly journals, and books; it is also cited as a source in hundreds (thousands?) of Wikipedia articles and is recognized here as a reliable source. Deleting the article, which provides background information and context on the database, simply does not improve Wikipedia. I don't recall ever relying on WP:IAR in 18 years working on Wikipedia, but this is a case where it definitely applies: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Cbl62 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"is recognized here as a reliable source" no it isn't... IAR doesn't mean make shit up to support your position... Its never had a real RSN consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The fact that the subject has been widely cited in books on college football history and in scholarly journals, such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law, is proof of notability. The points made by Cbl62, all of which are valid, also favor keeping the article. In addition, this article is a valuable source of information, which if lost would be detrimental to Wikipedia. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Projectify We have several keep votes already here, but PK-WIKI's central point remains unchallenged: there has been no substantial coverage of the College Football Data Warehouse itself to establish it as a notable subject. Its use as a source in books, newspapers, and journals and establishes it a reliable source (at least in the past), but not clearly as a notable subject. Compare, for example, with Baseball Reference, which was the subject of a 2015 article in Rolling Stone (here). We having nothing of that sort for CFDW. I also have my doubts that CFWD remains a quality tertiary source now that it is defunct and has not been updated in several years, and therefore does not reflect any of the error-checking and de-bugging against primary and secondary sources that we editors have performed here in editing Wikipedia in recent years. In the early to mid 2010s, I sent David DeLassus over 100 emails regarding errors I found on his website, and he made corrections accordingly. But that obviously stopped once the site went effectively defunct nearly a decade ago. To that point, I have been removing references to CFDW wherever they are redundant or can be replaced with other suitable sources. I plan to eventually remove all the references to CFDW, if possible. But given CFDW's history as a reliable source and frequent citation here on Wikipedia, I think this article should be preserved in some form. A WikiProject College football project page seems like the best fit. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with moving it to the internal Wikipedia:WikiProject College football space. That page would be far more useful than the current article, as we could discuss the history/authorship/reliability/sourcing issues you mention that are inappropriate for mainspace. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with the suggesstion from Jweiss11. Let'srun (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comment regarding moving to projectspace?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as incredibly widely cited media outlet. It’s well established that media doesn’t cover other media in the same way it covers the subjects themselves. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WilsonP makes an incredibly good point. And very few media outlets have such a long history of being cited as a reliable source to the extent we see here with CFDW being cited in the most reputable newspapers in America in addition to books and academic journals. Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Among the Wikipedia articles on college football, for the past several years, mentions of and citations to CFDW have (for reasons not related to WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV) been removed from articles and lists by:
  • replacing, within a table, a column that relied on CFDW for inclusion criteria,
  • deleting from another article the very same table that appears in this subject article,
  • deleting a section about CFDW,
  • (per a statement by one of the respected editors above) removing references to CFDW, with a mission to eventually remove all references to CFDW from Wikipedia.

For some of these removals, I began a discussion to object to and resolve the disagreements, and in the end, I relented based on good faith considerations. However, the pursuit to remove CFDW wherever it is mentioned is beginning to seem like a targeted effort to inflict upon CFDW a "death by a thousand cuts", and I am growing weary in general, not to mention becoming older by the day. And I mean no disrespect of any other editors.

Perhaps there is an effort to eradicate all mention of CFDW from Wikipedia; I don't know. I will predict that, if this article is moved to Wikiproject space, then in relatively short time, someone (in disregard of the level of project activity and collaboration it might receive) will say, "The project never really got off the ground," and nominate it for MFD. That could well be a nail in the coffin of CFDW on Wikipedia, and people will celebrate that Wikipedia policies prevailed and therefore that CFDW suffered a deserved fate.

Therefore, I agree with Cbl62 that, if ever there was a reason for implementing WP:IAR to keep an article, this is it. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an answer to that, from my perspective CFDW was extremely over-represented (to the point of clearly violating WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT) in the articles you mention. This probably comes from being one of the top college football websites available in the years immediately following the founding of Wikipedia. I am rather critical of their opinion on "recognized national champions" (as are you?) and I believe per our evolved adherence to NPOV it was right to remove them from the Wikipedia articles you mention.

CFDW is/was perhaps a reliable source on records and statistical data (although I do have my doubts due to it being WP:SELFPUBLISHED). My issue with using it for this, though, is that the authors of CFDW do not cite any sources for their information. They were surely just drawing it from athletic department publications and newspaper clippings, which is exactly what we now do here at Wikipedia. This was obviously MUCH harder in the time of microfilm and the early days of the internet, so I commend them for their research. But today, in the age of Newspapers.com and other great archives of contemporary reporting, I would rather just mostly skip the step of citing a random self-published website that has been offline for a decade and that may contain forever-uncorrected errors.

I myself have absolutely no intention of deleting a CFDW page in the CFB wikiproject space. I would probably be one of the primary authors. I would have expanded the mainspace article, but unfortunately there appears to be zero significant coverage ever written about the website. If either of the authors are shown to be notable or published, I will consider writing an article on them. PK-WIKI (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find Jeff in CA's suggestion that if we projectify the CFDW article, it will soon be MfD'd to be credible. We have lots of project pages that have been around for years, including several that I created (like Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coaching trees, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Official college football guides, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Archived yearbooks, Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Media guide errors). I don't recall any of these every being MfD'd. If someone were to MfD a projectified CFWD article, you can count on my keep vote there. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus on whether to move to projectspace or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Projectify, there just isn't enough significant coverage to get us over the line... The USEDBYOTHERS argument is a weak one and overall does not surmount the lack of serious in depth coverage of the topic. The argument that the page not existing will affect its use as a source is a curious one but appears spurious and even if it were true would have no bearing on a deletion discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no significant coverage. The only thing the project needs to do is to list this source as one that is generally considered reliable but, as always, subject to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS for contradictory data. Binksternet (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What are you talking about? NSOFT is (an essay) about computer programs, not concepts in computer science. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply -referring to WP:NSOFT,which means the article is related to non-notable software. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's what I said NSOFT is about, but I still don't see how it's the least bit applicable here. It would be like applying WP:NSPECIES to a concept in anatomy. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that NSOFT applies, but I also think a computer scientist could offer a more useful response. Mangoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely does not apply. WP:NSOFT describes advice on inclusion of computer programs. An allocation site is not a computer program, but a more fundamental computing concept. MarioGom (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still think the article meets Wikipedia general notability guideline criteria? Clenpr (talk) 09:45, 27 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 00:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• On the assumption that this really is specifically germane to OOD, merge to Constructor (object-oriented programming), as I don't think you can say much about it out of that context. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC) struck in favor of below.[reply]

  Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The definition is correct, and it's not specific to object-oriented programming - it's used generally when talking about dynamic memory allocation. A quick search for "allocation site" on Google Books finds 15 references using it in this sense in the first 20 results. However, I'm not sure there's enough to say about the concept for an article of its own. Pointer analysis could be a redirect target, although that's specifically about static analysis and it's also used in dynamic analysis (e.g. memory debugging). Adam Sampson (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge though I am not as savvy in programming itself, basing upon the definition stated in the article, a sensible move for me is to merge it to Object-oriented programming,as on its own as it is, seems not enough as a standalone, noted also by fellow wikipedians above for lack of RS to support it.Villkomoses (talk) 09:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you provide a valid independent source so there is at least a reference in the redirected article? We do not want unverifiable content in Wikipedia. Clenpr (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• jlwoodwa, do you have an opinion on the two merge/redirect targets above? Mangoe, do you stand by your proposed target or would you prefer Adam Sampson's proposal of Pointer analysis? Toadspike [Talk] 14:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Memory management. The current article is not very useful, and a redirect to OOP-specific article would be incorrect. Memory allocation is not specific to object oriented programming. The concept of a an allocation site is not specific to OOP either. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Memory management per above as this seems to be a better target. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article has been created multiple times before (Draft:Lodaya Train, Draft:Lodaya train, Draft:Lodaya (train)) with slightly different names. I am unable to find sources to show that this meets GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indonesia. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Page is completely unsourced, and notability is clearly lacking. Author is a bit disruptive since they keep recreating the article for no reason, and they also remove maintenance templates without explanation. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the expansion since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Strongest earthquake in the area in the last 75 years [64]. I would say that's something. MarioGom (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a database and all I could find elsewhere was some mentions like [[65]]. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Let'srun (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I couldn't find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Lebanon at the 1972 Winter Olympics as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only source is a database and I can't find anything else to support notability. Let'srun (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Myanmar. Let'srun (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree that it does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sailing at the 1960 Summer Olympics as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally, it is preferred to redirect to the relevant country article rather than the event article, but as the subject competed in two Olympics, it is not clear that there is a single obvious target here. Let'srun (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I contacted the Myanmar Sailing Federation since apparently he was the preeminent Burmese sailor in the 1950s (and head of the organization), but no response... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. He was an officer in wars involving the Dominican Republic, but hardly a "national hero". I couldn't find anything more than passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Dominican Republic. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meets WP:GNG. Pasados (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The whole article depends on a single source. CharlesWain (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If he were a National Hero, it would not be hard for him to meet WP:SIGCOV or to at least get info from more than one source. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to the source already in the article, there is a paragraph (9 lines) about him in "Soldados de la Independencia, Generales de la Restauración1." Edición Conmemorativa 150 años del triunfo de la Guerra Restauradora, 1865-2015 84.190 (2015), p 56 [66], and his name appears in many other histories, with publication dates from 1900 to 2004, of which I can only see snippet views in Google Books. The article needs editing (and a Talk page). RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about an office building, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for office buildings. As always, buildings are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis of their architectural, historical, social or cultural significance -- but this doesn't make any meaningful notability claim over and above existing, and is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability. The only reliable source present here at all is an insurance industry trade magazine, which is here solely to tangentially verify the name of the company's CEO rather than supporting any information about the building in its own right.
Since it's the headquarters of a company that does have an article under WP:CORP terms, any information we need about its head office can easily be contained in the company's article -- but in order to qualify for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the company, it would need a much stronger notability claim, and much better sourcing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient notability to pass WP:NBUILD. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not appear notable, could not find any meaningful sources. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles about designated heritage buildings is something that we should be expanding on Wikipedia. This is a prominent and very well-known building - you even see mention of it in fiction, such as [ short stories] by Austin Clarke. There has been coverage over the last half-century, such as this significant trade article when it was sold in 2022. There was national media coverage when it was constructed, such as in the Globe and Mail (ProQuest 1270450320). Even if the article isn't deemed worthy of inclusion, it's most certainly should be merged and/or redirected to Foresters Financial. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is a designated heritage building then it passes WP:GEOFEAT. But I can't see any evidence that it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a document on intent to designate [67], but I'm not sure if it was actually designated or not. MarioGom (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete  : Not a listed heritage building, so no listing there to help. I don't see news articles about this place, appears to be just another high rise in Toronto. No real sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

put the wrong address in, it's listed under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. [68], but that's not enough for sourcing. Let's see what else we can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy heritage study attached to the by-law [69]. Coverage here [70], column down on the left, suggests there is coverage of this in a book about the architect. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to evaluate additional sources mentioned by User:Oaktree b.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of this page are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) Administrators may disregard the above message. You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If administrator}}. You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning { display: none; }

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

The person mentioned in the article is actually its own author! This constitutes a clear conflict of interest. Furthermore, the person presented as a representative is virtually unknown in the Palestinian territories. The article violates all standards. The author is attempting to create an article about himself in various versions of Wikipedia, but he does not meet the notability criteria. — Osama Eid ^(talk) 10:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It may be an autobiographyt but that is actually allowed, as long as it has been submitted to WP:AFC. Easliy passes WP:GNG though could do with some clean up. Theroadislong (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the page can be tagged with a maintenance template regarding COI, but the person is definitely notable, whether or not they wrote it themselves. It's written in a neutral tone, and from the oldest revision, appears to have been translated by the page creator from another wiki, so the content may have actually been written by various other people. Anyway, the subject is notable because of his arrest leading to mass protests (see this report, which is sourced in the article), media pressure leading to a conditional release, and being the director of several noteworthy TV shows. jolielover♥talk 10:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Because it is spam. He also made his article in Indonesian, Nederland, German, Korean and other language Wikipedia so it can be considered as cross-wiki LTA Badak Jawa (talk) 11:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same opinion with Badak Jawa Fazoffic. Singasarská (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Autobiographical article, emergency level conflict of interest. Seeing how the author of the article created an article with the same structure and content on many wikis at once, it is strongly suspected that this is an attempt at character promotion (or more accurately, self-promotion). See WP:YOU.
  Absolute Strong Keep Per @Theroadislong, an autobiography article, no matter the potential WP:ACTUALCOI or whatever, is okay to make as long as it has many sources (WP:RS), is neatly written, and NPOV. This is also a very useful new knowledge for me. Thank you. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't the person unquestionably notable? If not for the arrests, surely as an actor/director for several TV shows. jolielover♥talk 11:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AUTO has replied to your comment. This is not encouraged at all on Wikipedia, even if they try to be neutral. Paid contributors are still better than creating articles by hand. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 11:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jolielover I suggest you read Wikipedia:AUTO#The problem with autobiographies and Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about yourself Badak Jawa (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete @Jolielover But making an autobiography on Wikipedia itself is prohibited, even if the subject is worthy. A figure on Wikipedia must be created by someone else, and must not be created by the person himself so that the contents of the article are more reliable and accurate, without any suspicion of adding spices, self promotion, also paid contributor. Serigala Sumatera (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This !vote was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  From my inclusionist point of view, I think there ought to be a community revision so as to check and assure the netrality of the article and to add additional information regarding the opposing view of Thaher, to make it more neutral. Because structure-wise, it is pretty decent. Your thoughts, @Jolielover? ANNAFscience (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Serigala Sumatera That is absolutely incorrect, creating autobiographies is discouraged but NOT prohibited. Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theroadislong And do you know if the autobiography article has many problems? Have you read Wikipedia:AUTO#Creating an article about Yourself? Badak Jawa (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yes of course I have... and it states " submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly." which is what happened here. Look [71] Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Theroadislong: So, making an autobiography article on enwiki is okay as long as it is written neutrally, neatly, has many references, and through AfC? Wow, this is very good news. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. ▪︎ Fazoffic _{( ʖ╎ᓵᔑ∷ᔑ)} 12:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, yes, basically. WP:AUTO says If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, and if you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then submit a draft to at Articles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly. AfC provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time. The thing is: this article did go through the AfC process (see here), making any argument for deletion irrelevant since policy explicitly states that autobiographies can be submitted and be approved through this process. jolielover♥talk 13:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jolielover and @Theroadislong Abduddaher globally blocked by EPIC Badak Jawa (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•  Remind

The author of the article has created or edited all versions of other projects, which is generally considered cross-wiki spam.--— Osama Eid ^(talk) 13:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the user translated this page from an original article in the Arabic Wikipedia, and the original Arabic page that contains most of the information was written and created by someone else about 11 years ago. It is not the same user, so he didn't write that article about himself. It is also noted that the person who is featured in the article is famous and has extensive work and presence on international websites and databases, and his biography is full of notable events, which are supported by many references. He is a candidate to still be on Wikipedia, from my point of view. 85.113.115.249 (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since your title references the Palestinian territories, and given that I suspect you may be the same individual, allow me to clarify a few points regarding this matter.

The same person has previously attempted to contact several editors of the Arabic Wikipedia, requesting that they write about him and later edit his article. He even admitted that some news websites wrote about him after reaching a prior agreement with him.

Furthermore, how can this person be classified as notable or well-known in the Palestinian territories?

He is not recognized in the Palestinian community — this is evident from the extremely low search interest in his name. He also has no followers on social media, nor any noticeable engagement or content presence online.

So how can such a person be considered notable or prominent in the Palestinian territories? — Osama Eid ^(talk) 04:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...because there is established SIGCOV of him? A report and several news articles concerning his arrest, or his TV shows/films? The number of followers he has is irrelevant. jolielover♥talk 05:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The author of the articles is now globally blocked. Singasarská (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Osama if the person is NOT notable in English Wikipedia, he isn't so in Arabic Wikipedia. I don't find you nominate the Arabic article for deletion and I think he meets WP:GNG enough, so I lean to Keep it. The issue now is that there is a conflict of interest and I don't think it's a good reason for deletion, since there is a maintaining tags, e. g. {{COI}} and you can rewrite this article according to Wikimedia guides. --Karim talk to me :)..! 20:00, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic [72]. Conflict of Interest - Mass Deletions Across Projects Maxpro2025 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC) This post was made by an editor who is not extended confirmed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't care what happens at other wikis - this article on this wiki is appropriately sourced and demonstrates this subject meets the WP:GNG standard for notable BLPs. Will also remind all participants that this AfD falls within a CTOP and they should make sure they're aware of its rules. Simonm223 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Might justify a COI tag and a cleanup to improve NPOV a bit, but it's not so outrageously promotional that TNT is warranted, and the subject clearly meets GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk)

• Keep I'm not seeing an actual argument for deletion. Writing an article on yourself, while strongly discouraged, is not a deletion argument. And the nominator has not given any arguments to back up their claim of non-notability, especially when a strong one would have to be made considering the large number of proper sources currently in the article. The subject appears to be widely and properly covered in media. Obviously spanning years in relation to his detainment (see here, here, here, and here as some examples), but also previously to that for his work, such as this, this, this, this, and this. And there's plenty more out there. The coverage of him seems significant. Silverseren^C 15:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, coverage appears independent, significant, and spreading over time, not just focused on a single event. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, echoing the sentiments shared by Jolielover, Silver_seren, and SarekOfVulcan. There's enough coverage here to satisfy WP:GNG. Though the current state of the article and its COI origin isn't ideal, it's fixable, and an article's quality does not diminish the notability of its subject. In addition to the Arabic sources provided by Silver_seren, I found a writeup on his lese-majeste case by Columbia University's Global Freedom of Expression initiative[73], an English-language article in the Middle East Eye[74], and two statements from the Committee to Protect Journalists[75][76] which themselves link several reports discussing his arrest, including one by the SKeyes Center for Media and Cultural Freedom[77]. Further sources beyond those already mentioned no doubt exist in Arabic-language sources I couldn't easily access. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Punjab FC records and statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS. The particular content can be found at Punjab FC#Records and statistics. Wareon (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Club is far too young to need this WP:CONTENTFORK. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify – As WP:ATD. I'm not against this type of page, but there's still little material to be worked on. Svartner (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Punjab FC#Records and statistics - does not need a separate article. GiantSnowman 18:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Punjab FC#Records and statistics per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In my WP:BEFORE, I found only one reliable independent source with significant coverage of the subject to count towards WP:BIO [78], which I added to the article. The other two sources cited in the article are not independent. I checked WP:NPROF and I think the only criteria that might apply is #1, for citations. Her Google Scholar profile [79] gives an h-index of around 30, which I suggest is borderline; I do note that the article had explicitly been undraftified with this comment respectable h-index, may meet WP:NPROF. I submit that it doesn't, and therefore than an article now is too soon. As an alternative to deletion, I would be happy for the article to be draftified again for future expansion and resubmisssion when notability is clearer. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete I would argue the one article the nom cites as potentially meeting WP:BIO is not in-depth enough count towards significance --- it's largely interview responses. From a public health perspective, the potential link between pollution and allergies/asthma/diabetes was established well before Aderelte's career began (e.g. [80]), so much of her research isn't groundbreaking in the field. I wouldn't even draftify this as academics usually take a while to become notable and it's likely to languish there for years. If Alderete becomes notable in the future someone can rewrite based on newer and better information. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

As an aside, the first paper I have concerns with are [81] which throws out measured infant masses in the methods section instead of using averages/standard deviations. I'd expect to get fired if I used such a method. Including standard deviations in mass would likely make the correlations appear much weaker than stated in the paper. The second is this one which does not include income as a potential confounding factor (incomes are generally lower near sources of pollution, and lower incomes mean healthier foods can be unaffordable, so could that be a more reasonable explanation for the observed correlation?). Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont disagree with you, I also feel this is a case just at the edge. However, the reason we are lenient for articles of professors / scientists is the Strickland case and the fact that its often fiendishly difficult for Wikipedians to judge academic research quality (and takes up a lot of time). Therefore peer assessment is what we go for and everything else borders on WP:OR. Personally, I am not familiar with the standard methodology for infant weight/length measurements, in some cases outlier removal is a valid method and treating outliers as if they come from a normally distributed set of values is also a mistake by itself. Maybe its just nontrivial to get a baby to hold still in a scale :-) ? I also agree that income could be a confounding factor for the other study, however they do mention they use parental education as a proxy for socioeconomic status so there is an attempt to control for it but there is no evidence to support this choice. Either way, it would be good if the discussion of the results would have included this limitation but it does not necessarily invalidate the whole study. --hroest 13:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Keep this person (just) passes WP:NPROF#1 with an h-index of 33 and 13 of her publications cited 100+ times. This indicates an impact in her academic field as per guidelines. --hroest 15:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and repair. There were some very strange statements such as her currently being a postdoctoral scholar (at the same time as an associate professor), I removed that one as I don't believe it. Her h-index is borderline, as others have said, but her citation trend is very strongly increasing so I am OK to give her the benefit of the doubt. Someone badly needs to repair the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and China. Shellwood (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources I found were passing mentions and unreliable sources. Huijiwiki (simplified Chinese: 灰机wiki; traditional Chinese: 灰機wiki; lit. 'Gray Machine Wiki') does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the sources are either passing mentions or not reliable enough. The subject does not meet the notability criteria for websites. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Huijiwiki is cited in multiple papers:

吕明芳 (2019). 功能对等视角下游戏本地化翻译策略探讨与反思 ——以游戏《文明Ⅵ》为例 [A Study and Reflection on Game Localization Translation Strategies from the Perspective of Functional Equivalence -- Taking the Game "Civilization VI" as an Example] (Thesis). Beijing Foreign Studies University. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

杨玲 (2018). 《临高启明》与当代幻想文学中的世界建构 [The World Construction of Lingao Qiming and Contemporary Fantasy Literature]. 济宁学院学报. 39 (1): 51–56. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

刘显. 科幻小说《三体》及改编作品的故事世界研究 [A Study on the Story World of the Science Fiction Novel The Three-Body Problem and its Adaptations] (Thesis). Retrieved 2025-05-01.

郭小嘉 (2022). 论《三体Ⅱ·黑暗森林》日译本的文化意象传递 [On the Transmission of Cultural Images in the Japanese Translation of The Three-Body Problem II: The Dark Forest] (Thesis). 黑龙江大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王昊岚 (2023). MMORPG及其演变分析 ——以《最终幻想》系列为例 [Analysis of MMORPG and Its Evolution -- Taking the Final Fantasy Series as an Example] (Thesis). 天津大学. Retrieved 2025-05-01.

王依婷 (2021-11-19). "zh:审美认同与孙悟空视觉形象的海外流布" [Aesthetic Identity and the Overseas Spread of the Visual Image of Sun Wukong]. 中外文论2021. “跨文化视野下文艺理论批评前沿问题”研讨会暨中国中外文艺理论学会第18届年会. Guilin. pp. 135–150. doi:10.26914/c.cnkihy.2021.083048. Retrieved 2025-05-01. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing these sources 内存溢出的猫 (talk · contribs). Do these sources merely cite Huijiwiki, or do they also discuss Huijiwiki "directly and detail" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline)? Cunard (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be enough to support keeping the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard Unfortunately there is no detailed introduction to huijiwiki. They either directly quote or use its content, or use it as a reference—you can tell from the titles of these articles that they are studies of fictional works.

From my personal perspective, this wiki seems to be a (relatively successful) Chinese version of Fandom, at least in terms of fan content, as they are used in journals. I guess that is because in China there lacks other popular websites for creating fandom sub-wikis. But the wiki it does lack sufficient coverage. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article reposted by the China Digital Science and Technology Museum, originally published in Science Fiction World (the oldest and most popular science fiction magazine & sci-fi book publisher of PRC):

"The 'Lord of the Rings Chinese Wiki' was founded in 2015 by Ser Gawen, the founder of HuijiWiki. Hosted on the HuijiWiki platform, it is an encyclopedia website built entirely by a self-organized group of enthusiasts, dedicated to compiling entries on everything related to J.R.R. Tolkien. The wiki's editing team aims to establish China's premier Tolkien database, providing readers with comprehensive, fact-based, and reliably sourced information. Currently, the site features over three thousand entries, generally sufficient to meet the needs for information lookup."

内存溢出的猫 (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

内存溢出的猫 (talk · contribs), thank you for your research! The coverage in Science Fiction World is a great find. I am striking my support for deletion and will be neutral for now. If there is a second source that provides significant coverage like this, I would switch to supporting retention as the website would meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an author of the article, someone who cited some would make me nominate to keep the article. Ahri Boy (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard

Ok, finally I found a speech given by the author of the novel Lingao Qiming at Peking University was published in the journal Internet Literature Review (ISSN: 2096-384X):

Let me also discuss how I utilize fanfiction for 'crowdsourced writing'. We specifically set up a Wikipedia-like platform called 'Lingao Qiming Huijiwiki', which contains roughly over 8 million characters of fanfiction.

吹牛者 (2017). "《临高启明》与互联网时代的写作——吹牛者在北大的讲座". 网络文学评论 (3): 40–45. Retrieved 2025-05-08. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 1998 Commonwealth Games – Men's javelin throw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable javelin throw event, i was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• We generally consider these event articles as valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long). If deleted this would be, I think, the only event in the history of the Commonwealth Games to not have an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, keep per WP:NOLYMPIC "*Significant coverage is likely to exist for events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's", and this extends to most international Games and Championships as well. There is also SIGCOV in this specific instance to prove the point, e.g. "Silver lining as England team mount final push" or "Backley spurred on by upset". Lastly I'll just say that because this is a list article, per WP:NLIST sometimes lists can be kept because they're useful navigational aids without demonstrating notability. --Habst (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Lists that are unsourced, single-sourced, or single primary sourced, existing as an exception to WP:NLIST which states, Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists.. This sort of mirrors Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

Review: Any exception[s], if actually allowed by consensus (depending on the list), need to be one of three, for Information, navigation, or Development. I am not sure an unsourced or poorly sourced break-away list containing the names of living people qualifies. Consideration, of course, has to be the membership criteria.

While attempting to validate a list, policies and guidelines should probably at least be considered. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists includes, "Citing sources": Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources.

Some editors may attempt to down-play the Notability guideline. The opening sentence states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The actual opening paragraph states, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".

Wikipedia gauges notability and being "worthy of notice" by verifiability: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Please note #2 and #3:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

The note on numbers 2 and 3 is because any assumption of inherited or inherent notability is a fallacy. Alright, that's not the note, but true. Anyway, an article, or list, that remains published, either by silence on the subject, or even IAR, is subject to consensus and the fact that consensus can change.

The mention that other stuff exists is usually not a good thing to bring up at AFD. A good discussion for an exemption would be "valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long)." If a supposed parent article is not sourced or barely sourced, I am not open to considering a "valid split". I have ran across several of these. Articles like List of European Athletics Championships records has sources and also have many "splits" listed as details, which might be a consideration. There should be a link to the "main" article. Articles like European Running Championships with two sources counted as one and likely not advancing notability would not be a good candidate for consideration..

Summation: To claim exemption from notability or verifiability requires silence from other editors, IAR, that is dependent on consensus, and must consider the fact that consensus can change. Any silence ends when there is a challenge, so "likely to exist" becomes moot, and is satisfied by proof in the form of references, specifically inline citations. It would be better to supply a reference and the link to the main article to keep some editor from going on a crusade. It would be sad if the "history of the Commonwealth Games" were upset. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this AI? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I would recommend the addition of at least one reliable source to the article per WP:V. The present one is insecure.

Otr500, you need to abide by due process at AfD by providing a concise rationale that may include links to guidelines. I doubt if anyone will make time to read your input here, and the reaction by BeanieFan11 is understandable. Spartathenian (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added the above sources to the article, thanks. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Habst. Spartathenian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Recommend immediate closure as the "keep" arguments and actions are policy-compliant, and the nomination reveals a lack of experience in subjects of this type. I would close it myself but for earlier involvement. Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Struck. See below - Firstly, I do not understand the argument that this is a list article. It is an article about a single event in the athletics section of a single competition in a single year. I suppose it "lists" the distances thrown by competitors but that is not really a list so much as a demonstration that this subject only has database listing evidence. No, the piece about Backley's throw does not show that the event is independently notable. The games are notable, but the single event is a spin-off of the games article. There is no clear reason why that is necessary. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but it is not a results database, and that is all this page is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years ago, it was decided to spin-off the results as otherwise the main page would get way too long. If deleted, this would be, out of the thousands of events in its history, the sole Commonwealth Games event missing an article. That would be nonsensical. If we're saying that its not encyclopedic they need to be discussed as a group, not just one, as that would leave a very awkward gap. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Speaking only to the list classification, historically these articles have been classified by the community as lists due to the reasoning you point out; see Category:List-Class Athletics articles for hundreds of other examples. I only chose the first two newspapers.com results but there are many others about the event if you just search the names of the medalists in quotes. These javelin throws only happened once every four years and they were a very important and highly-discussed sports match, second only to the Olympics. --Habst (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion to establish if this should be treated separately from other Games articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The WP:NOLYMPIC position quoted above extends to other top-level championships including the Commonwealth Games. It is true that the Games as a whole have an over-arching level of notability as they are a major sporting event, but each individual competition within the Games is also notable in its own right. In practice, as BeanieFan11 rightly pointed out earlier, individual event articles are maintained as valid forks from the Games article for reasons that must include pagelength and readership convenience. Spartathenian (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NOLYMPIC suitably makes the case that the Commonwealth Games would be notable, but there are 45 disciplines at the Commonwealth games, of which 26 are core disciplines. The relevant discipline for Men's Javelin is, in fact, Athletics (a core discipline). The Athletics discipline consists of nearly 70 events, of which the Men's javelin throw is just one. A page on the Commonwealth Games in any year it is held is certainly notable. That does not mean that for every Commonwealth Games we should also presume there are many hundreds of pages of notable events for every one of the 45 disciplines. There is clearly no such presumption intended nor implied. The only thing that matters would be secondary sources telling us about the 1998 men's javelin throw, discussing the event, and explaining why the event is enduringly notable. Such coverage would need to be WP:SUSTAINED, and not just primary reports of the results of the competition itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sirfurboy, I understand your frustration but I think part of the reason these guidelines have worked so well is because nobody has been able to find a case disproving the rule yet, at least not for a javelin throw at the Commonwealth Games. In my search earlier I saw newspapers that do exactly what you describe about the 1998 Commonwealth javelin, I can't speak for every event but these ones at least were a big deal. Of course, another explanation is that these articles are classified as lists which can be treated differently w.r.t. notability per WP:NLIST. --Habst (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Were the guidelines suggesting that every single event spawns hundreds of pages, then the guidelines would not be working well. But the guidelines don't say that. This page is a spin-off. There is no evidence of independent notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The number of pages created (whether hundreds, thousands, or zero) isn't an indication that a guideline is working or not working. The indication would be whether community consensus was achieved, which by and large it is as demonstrated in this AfD for international games coverage. --Habst (talk) 18:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per additions by Habst. I agree with the user Habst here. It meets significant relevance and notability. WP:N and WP:V HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is not about a small sports event respectfully as coverage is there. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Commonwealth Games events are notable. Svartner (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Keep - I have struck my delete, because there is no point arguing the toss on this single event when, as Habst points out above, these pages exist for all events in all games. Deleting this page will make very little impact in that situation, and, in fact, any resolution would require very large amounts of effort. To be clear, no evidence has been given that this event is independently notable. We have no sources at all beyond the results, and nothing to put on this page (and all such pages) other than results tables. There were 283 events at the last Commonwealth Games, and I think that doubles as there are men's and women's events. That is an enormous number of pages sourced only to the primary sourced medals table, and in my review, this is exactly what is found on all of these I looked at. Is Wikipedia here for duplicating the medals tables these pages are sourced from? Is a semiplagiaristic results database what the encyclopaedia is all about? Perhaps not. But there also might be marginal utility for those who cannot otherwise search for the official record. In any case, any attempt to resolve this situation would need to consider all pages at once, and this AfD is not the place to consider that. If the nom. wants to start and RfC on the matter, please ping me in, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by deleting this lone permastub. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's important for the record to contest that no evidence has been given that the event is notable; the above linked articles provide prose-based SIGCOV of the event and they're far from the only ones. These prose-based non-database sources were added to the article, so it's not true that there are no sources beyond the results. Also, w.r.t. plagiarism, it's important to note that simple facts like sports results or temperature data or election/polling results are generally not copyrightable and are in the public domain in the U.S. regardless of whether there is a copyright notice on the original source. --Habst (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Two short newspaper reports of the event are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sources must be secondary to count towards notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with WP:PRIMARYNEWS, which says, "Yale University's guide to comparative literature lists newspaper articles as both primary and secondary sources, depending on whether they contain an interpretation of primary source material". In this case because analysis is performed on the results and the results are not merely listed out, the sources are secondary per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. --Habst (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We have been here before. No, you are not agreeing with PRIMARYNEWS when you describe eyewitness news reports of the event published 21 and 22 May 1998 (that is, the day of the event and the day after), as secondary sources. You are not agreeing with what PRIMARYNEWS explains:

  Wikipedia fairly often writes about current events. As a result, an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Wikipedia just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.

  You are doing the exact opposite. You are persisting in calling covereage from the following day's newspapers secondary sources, despite what PRIMARYNEWS explains. These reports are the epitome of primary sources. They are eyewitness accounts of the event. What synthesis of primary sources do they include, regarding the the event? None whatsoever. What analysis is there of the page subject, the men's Javelin throw? What history drawn or curated from primary research? There is nothing. If you think that a reporter's account of an event, written immediately after the event, based on what they saw, is anything but a primary source, then you have some reading to do. Drop the stick on this one. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The date of publication is sometimes correlated but never causal with whether a news analysis is primary or secondary. So to just say the date that an article was published as evidence that it is primary is never sufficient; you need to look at the substance of the content.

  In this case, analysis is provided. This is following a very plain-faced reading of WP:PRIMARYNEWS, which might as well be called WP:SECONDARYNEWS because it provides just as many reasons why news coverage is often secondary.

  The primary sources would be the results listings (places and marks) in this case, while the secondary analysis is the prose-based commentary on those listings. --Habst (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Same reason as "List of villages in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. I don't have much of an opinion beyond that at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. The "proposed merge" was not a formal merge discussion, either. SportingFlyer T·C 07:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wouldn't a merge be more appropriate? There should be two lists: List of municipalities, and List of census-designated places. Those two are comprehensive and do not overlap. Mattximus (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect The gallery and lead info should be retained, but List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigational information. The highlighting of county seats is also nice, but there doesn't have to be a separate duplicative page here. Reywas92^Talk 15:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong in keeping the list of cities of a state. NavjotSR (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that there is a list of cities in the municipalities list... Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge, this is a valid and standard list for U.S. states, but the existing List of municipalities in Missouri seems best to house this.--IndyNotes (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Category:Lists of cities in the United States by state. Different styles by different cities, but this does seem to be acceptable within Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the pages in that category are actually lists of municipalities, and many of those with city lists should also be merged (though in several cases like Alaska and Idaho, city is the only type of municipality). Just because this article title is acceptable in other situations doesn't mean we need duplicative pages for this state when all content is in another page already. Reywas92^Talk 13:37, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete As the user who overhauled the Municipality List because of the Merge suggestion at the top, I did want to reproduce the same formatting at the cities one, county seats highlighted, more color coding, etc. but did not know how to do at the time. As for the introduction and background information, I think that should be moved over.
• It does not make sense to me why there should be a list of cities, villages, and municipalities, especially when municipalities is both comprehensive and clear, while most readers may not understand the legal distinctions of what constitutes a village vs a city, nor do they really need to know that, and if they did it is in the table for the municipalities.
• Additionally, I know that the Municipalities List is accurate and up-to-date data from the state of Missouri, and the other articles are not. If the cities and villages articles are to be kept, I think their data needs to be overhauled.

SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages in Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Already merged with "List of Municipalities in Missouri". Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, United States of America, and Missouri. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For legal reasons, mergers are almost never reasons to delete due to the need to retain attributions. Even at that, a {{Being merged}} tag was removed from this list last year by Nythar (talk · contribs) saying no such consensus exists (in reference to the proposed merger). (For what it's worth, a similar tag was not removed from the list of cities in Missouri, which the nominator has also proposed to delete.) It would not surprise me if this nomination ends up not leading to anything, but at this time have little opinion beyond that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly valid navigational list, and the merge target is the worst article of the three proposed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Villages are by no means so different that they should be listed separately from the list of all municipalities. This is purely redundant and serves no purpose, List of municipalities in Missouri provides the exact same navigation but with data that isn't just bulleted blue links. You should merge the lead info as well. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Category:Lists of villages in the United States and Category:Lists of villages by country These seem to be accepted lists used by country and others. This seems to be global category listings. And as usual with Wikipedia, different styles for different places.— Maile (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, only a few other states have village lists, and in cases like List of villages in Massachusetts, the villages are not incorporated so they must be listed separately from actual municipalities, or in Guam, they are all of the municipalities and this is the only list for it. Several others in the category are the primary municipality list where the villages are included, just like List of municipalities in Missouri! In Missouri, villages are incorporated municipalities that are already listed in the main list, and there is nothing special about them that justifies a duplicate listing. Villages in other countries are obviously going to be too different to compare, but the style for Missouri should be to list the incorporated places together, without pointless redundancy. The fact that village lists are accepted elsewhere has no bearing on this page. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested draftification. The only coverage of this football player I can find are trivial announcements that he'll be joining Chelsea and run-of-the-mill stories about his scoring in particular games. The Forbes article appears to be unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. Note that NFOOTY has been explicitly repealed by consensus of the community. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability#202203070648_Wugapodes_2 and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 49#Association football (soccer). voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kazakhstan, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep I already cited the most no. of sources and citations in Eng than other language versions, even more than the Kazakh version. Also included sourves from Kazakhstan FA and FC Kairat, please consider those. Chelsdog (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep International player, loads of sources on google, did you bother with a WP:BEFORE, [90], [91], [92]. Terrible nomination in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you read the part of my nom where I said all of the sources I could find are trivial coverage or run of the mill stories about his transfer to Chelsea? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:voorts

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Forbes	WP:FORBESCON	WP:FORBESCON		? Unknown
Football Talent Scout		SPS. See about page.		✘ No
Astana Times	Independent of the subject, but not independent in the sense that this is a Kazakh-government run paper that has a vested interest in promoting Kazakhstan. See Special:PermanentLink/1059226246#Kazakh-government funded outlets.	See comment on independence.	Run-of-the-mill announcement about transfer. Not significant because participation does not equal notability.	✘ No
Vesti 1		No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	One sentence about the article subject.	✘ No
Vesti 2	?	No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	Trivial coverage about a single game.	✘ No
Vesti 3		No clear editorial standards and no author listed on article.	Largely trivial coverage about a single game, but tries to situate this into a potential record that the player hasn't actually broken.	? Unknown
Kazinform	English translation of press release. See following entry in chart.		Run-of-the-mill press release about moving to Chelsea.	✘ No
FC Kairat	Official team site.		Run-of-the-mill press release about moving to Chelsea.	✘ No
Chelsea Chronicle	Fan site.	Fan site, but claims to be run by journalists; no clear editorial standar ds]. Editorial standards here		? Unknown
The Standard			Run-of-the-mill story about transfer to Chelsea.	✘ No
KFF	Kazakhstan Football Federation website.		Participation is not sufficient for notability per the two RfCs noted in my nom.	✘ No
FC Kairat 2	Team website.		Two sentences and doesn't mention this player.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Source assessment confirms that the coverage is largely based on participation. Participation-based coverage is not sufficient for notability based on the two RfCs linked to in the nom. If footy editors want that changed, they're welcome to go start another RfC at NSPORTS. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources are too trivial/routine. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  added few more sources including BBC and YAHOO News. I guess they would be notable and reliable enough? Chelsdog (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Forbes, Vesti 2, and Chelsea Chronicle are decent enough to meet WP:GNG in my view. All Wikipedia articles require multiple significant coverage on reliable secondary sources. If his career with Chelsea FC does not pan out when he officially arrives there (e.g. only played a few matches), this page should be deleted. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly passes GNG with Kazakh sources and now after his big transfer.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]