Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 7

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

Osvaldo Palazzi (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:NSPORTS-failing LUGSTUB-a-like. No corresponding IT Wiki article.

The article makes repeated statements about Palazzi winning individual "medals" at the gymnastics tournaments in Turin and Paris. In reality no individual medals were awarded until 1922, with individual scores (not medals) only being recognised retrospectively after 1922. Scores conferred retrospectively years after the event, as a statistical artefact, cannot indicate notability, since they are not subject to the same assumption that they will have generated significant coverage that usually attends such awards. Palazzi's team won the team bronze in Paris and Turin, but Palazzi does not inherit the notability of his team per WP:NTEAM. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. There was a prominent Italian priest by the same name born in 1917. The only reference in the article is to a bare list that can be seen here. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per WP:NOLYMPIC: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete in any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games". Even though there are gaps in the proper sources, the notability is undeniable. Svartner (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Where does it say he won a medal at the Olympic Games? FOARP (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen him as an Olympic medalist, not a world medalist. I will withdraw my vote. Svartner (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Svartner, a note that even if he met NOLY, per NSPORT the article is still required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. If someone has access to appropriate access to offline Italian sources without being able to find content, please let me know. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What part of WP:NGYMNAST is he supposed to meet? Significant coverage is not likely to exist simply as a result of retrospectively-awarded individual scores given decades after the event. No individual medal were awarded at this event. FOARP (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be your opinion, but you can’t claim that. Retrospective Olympic medalists have for instance received coverage. 95.98.65.177 (talk),

• Delete - In fact he does not meet WP:NGYMNAST as that specifically refers to individual medals, not team ones, and despite what the page says, there was no pommel horse individual medal at that event. But, in any case, even if he did meet NGYMNAST, it is still required that the page must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. We cannot get away with just saying such sources are likely to exist. Subject does not meet GNG as we do not have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Offline Italian language sources are likely to only include primary sources (newspaper reports, event programmes, certificates, records etc. are all primary sources). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahh, I didn't know that. Do you have a reliable source for your claim? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What claim? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume he means the fact that no individual medals were awarded? Here on page 76. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, indeed thanks! But I don’t see that Wikipedia is wrong at all the pages so I started searching. I see in this document their achievements are recognized retrospectively. And they are also included official in the overall medal table. So with this recognition you can’t state on the basis of your OR-reasoning that NGymnastics doesn’t apply as it is likely that there is written receiving recognition. There were also no medals awarded at the 1896 Summer Olympics, while retrospectively they are also medalists (counts also for the total medal table) and have received coverage because they received the recognition. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It isn't at all likely that retrospectively-awarded scores, given decades after the event, in championships that were not considered "world championships" at the time, will have attracted any significant coverage at all. This may well be the reason why the World Championships aren't explicitly mentioned as "elite competitions" at WP:NGYMNAST, and shouldn't simply be assumed as being in there now in all cases.

  To see that this is so you need only read contemporaneous reports of these events (e.g., 1 2 3) - a single paragraph or two about the event as a whole in which individual events aren't mentioned at all (because everyone at the time thought it was just a team event, because that's what it was).
  

  It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time. The question is whether independent and reliable sources have gone along with this and given significant coverage to the subject on that basis - as far as I can see they haven't.

  That last point matters a lot - because WP:NSPORTS2022 says that sports bios have to have at least one instance of significant coverage in an independent reliable source. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your extensive reasoning, and I understand your opinion. However it is still it’s not possible with own research to claim that the person is not meeting NGYMNASTS. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Showing that WP:NGYMNAST is met requires positive research to show that it is met. Specifically: it requires you to show that the competition was an elite one equivalent to the modern events listed. The 1911 Turin tournament was not, not least because individual medals weren’t awarded at it. FOARP (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether or not Palazzi was awarded any individual medal at the time, can you point to specific language within WP:NGYMNAST that states that the individual medals won at a competition had to have been awarded at the time and not retroactively? I see no specific language within NP:GYMNAST that specifically deals with the issue of retroactively vs contemporaneously awarded medals. Also, in the website that you have leaned on heavily for your deletion nominations and edits, Gymnastics-History.com, very many uses and reproductions of original source materials therein show that some of these games were covered by a number of periodicals of the time, thereby further satisfying notability criteria. Starting with the very first of these games, according to Gymnastics-History.com, a quote-in-translation from the August 17, 1903 edition of Le Matin states "This is an innovation: for the first time we have seen elite gymnasts of various nationalities compete among themselves, chosen by each Federation from among its best men.". This helps establish the notability of the very first of these tournaments. Furthermore, elsewhere you have stated that, officially or not, that these were not truly Worldwide (not exclusively European) championships. However, the all-around champion at these games Joseph Martinez was French-Algerian, born in Algeria, which is in Africa, not Europe; additionally 1909 and 1913 All-Around Champion from these games Marco Torres was also French-Algerian, born in Algeria, Africa. You would know this if you had read the leader for the article of the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships where you, further on down the article, denied the worldwide nature of these games "as such" due merely to the technicality that, at the time, the FIG was still termed the FEG. Well, there's also the technicality of Martinez and Torres not being exclusively European - they were also African. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It says "Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition (see below)". No individual medals were awarded at the 1911 Turin tournament. Any award was only made decades later. And as has been pointed out numerous times, at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV is needed in any event. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another thing I think I need to point out about your reasoning is that when you say "It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time", you might be looking at the overall body of work made by the FIG, IOC, Wikipedians, and other sources and be confused by the seeming lack of consistency with how medals are awarded to countries contemporaneously and respectively. For the majority of the history of the sport of gymnastics at the level of the modern Olympic Games and the World Championships (1896-present), both CzechoSlovakia and Yugoslavia existed. Those countries' efforts mattered at the time 'and still matter as they are a part of history. As for the issue of events not existing at the time, my understanding is that even at the Olympic Games, whereas the sport of gymnastics is concerned, there was no separate, dedicated individual competition at all until the 1972 Olympics, but nevertheless, individual medals were awarded based upon the performances of the individual athletes at the team competition. By the logic you have consistently employed in your rationales for deletion, this would then call for the deletion of the articles for such giants in the sport as Larisa Latynina, who for many years had more total Olympic medals than any other athlete in the history of the Olympic games, and Vera Caslavska who is the only gymnast ever, male or female, to win Olympic Gold on every individual event. You have to look at the logic and rationales that you have employed consistently and as a bottom line and realize the implications that such rationales have for massive, widespread deletionism. As much of a minefield of seemingly contradictory policies and scattered nuances as Wikipedia seems to be at times, your consistent insistences, if applied uniformly, would cause the content of Wikipedia to end up being only a very small fraction of what it is now, at least whereas the world of sport is concerned.QuakerIlK (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not matter whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not if they do not have IRS SIGCOV sourcing cited in the article. Articles are not deleted solely because the subject doesn't meet NGYMNAST, they are deleted because they fail the requirement for sportsperson articles. The only impact meeting NGYMNAST would have is if an IRS SIGCOV source was already identified, at which point the rebuttable presumption of further GNG-meeting coverage existing could potentially delay needing to demonstrate the subject actually does meet the "multiple sources" requirement for GNG. Instead of spending thousands of words trying to convince us that retroactive recognition "counts" for NGYM purposes, you should instead be looking for IRS SIGCOV sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NGYMNAST, as a subsidiary of NSPORT, requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article, which has not been satisfied. The entire point of the subcriteria, post-NSPORT2022, is to predict which athletes are/were most likely to have received GNG coverage. Recognition by independent sources, such as contemporary or retrospective media, is necessary, and empirically positive predictive power has been constrained to individual medalists. For that and other reasons, retroactive "awarding" of individual medals by non-independent bodies like FIG would not count for the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Delete is not the best option for a person meeting WP:GYMNAST and would redirecting to Italy at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in any case be a better solution. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - People have been canvased in to this discussion by this non-neutral notice at the Gymnastics project. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Copy/Paste from a separate AfD: I guess it's my turn. As others have noted, FOARP AfD'ed many articles targeted all under the same rationale which directly affected WikiProject Gymnastics. In an effort to have a centralized discussion, QuakerIlK included not just potential !keep votes, but those who had voted for deletion on the other conversations as well. It does not appear anyone new has since joined this AfD as a result. GauchoDude (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Posting a link saying that you want to vote keep on all of the discussions listed there, to the Gymnastics project, is a clear invitation to project members to go and vote keep in them. That's the essence of canvassing. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is moot anyway because WikiProject Gymnastics is a ghost town nowadays. The previous five small topics there go back to 2023 and the recent archives don't look much better. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I overturned a bad close by a new (not autoconfirmed) editor. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and another one by an IP. Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reality–virtuality continuum (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 concept was published in one single paper, and does not have wide acceptance among media, researchers, or any present papers. If anything, it should be listed at each of the authors' pages on Wikipedia if they have pages, however this concept is biased and incomplete, and should not have its own Wikipedia page. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The given rationale for deletion does not make sense to me. A quick google scholar search for the term turns up numerous papers. The original paper has 5000+ citations according to google scholar and searching for "reality virtuality continuum" for articles since 2024 results in over 1000 hits. Seems to be a widely discussed concept/seminal paper among researchers and is a topic of recent interest. If other reasons for deletion cannot be given, then this article should be kept and improved. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A single paper? According to Google Scholar, Milgram 1995 has 5,569 citations, Skarbez 2021 has 502 citations. Just to name the top papers. There's probably hundreds of papers discussing the concept. MarioGom (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just meant keeping one key paper as a reference, but you’re right—there’s a whole body of research on this. Thanks for highlighting the scope agree with above vote!Sigma World (talk)
• Keep Although just at a glance, I could not tell this concept had 5,000 citations. Might be prudent to put more of those on there so that we do not end up having to vote on this again sometime in the future. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-warrior (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 was recently the target of a vandal and a student editor who added a lot of AI slop. It's not much better now that it's been reverted. This is just another term for environmentalists (which itself was recently on AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmentalist, and was redirected to environmentalism). Wikipedia is not a dictionary. None of the linked people describe themselves, or have been described by others, as an eco-warrior. The one citation doesn't even use the word eco-warrior. Apocheir (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eco warrior is a dab page. Eco-warrior seems like the more common spelling, so the dab page could be moved to that name after the deletion. Apocheir (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move Eco warrior to this page, then make Eco warrior a redirect, per Apocheir ApexParagon (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and then move Eco warrior to Eco-warrior as suggested. It does seem plausible to me that a non-DICTDEF article could be written about the term eco-warrior, but I struggle to see how its scope would differ from radical environmentalism and environmental movement. Willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone wants to WP:HEY this and show that a distinct and useful article can be written about the concept of an “eco-warrior” (there are definitely plenty of sources, e.g. [1]). But I don’t think there’s any value in keeping this largely unsourced list of people. MCE89 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are some sources, but it's not widely used in MSM, and used as a pejorative in the Rightwing media. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester, Minnesota racial slur video (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)

BLP mess. At this stage it is impossible for this article to not be a BLP mess. Fails the recommended criteria for events at WP:EVENTCRIT, and at this stage it is WP:TOOSOON to have secondary sourcing. Not notable and as mentioned it is not possible to have this article without it being a BLP disaster. Sources are largely poor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Minnesota. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. I think we're actually doing a pretty good job with BLP in the current version of the article. There's nothing in there that isn't directly, materially provable from cited sources. I'm !voting soft keep because it's fairly early to call this notable, even though it has gotten a decent breath of coverage across geographies and has already started to recieve commentary (some of which is noted in the article). It would be much easier to determine whether it passes WP:EVENTCRIT a year from now though, which is why I fall on soft keep. I'd also push back on the claim that the "sources are largely poor", I threw together a SAT and I'm happy with the quality of the sources (I also noted in the location/scope of the cited newspaper to test breadth of coverage).

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/online-fundraiser-woman-used-racial-slur-raises-675k-racist-support-rcna204923 (US national news)		WP:NBC		✔ Yes
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/woman-racial-slur-relocate-b2744106.html (UK)		WP:THEINDEPENDENT		✔ Yes
https://archive.ph/Fshn8 (US national news)		WP:NBC		✔ Yes
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/viral-video-racial-slur-rochester-playground-backlash/ (Minnesota local news)		WP:CBS		✔ Yes
https://www.kaaltv.com/news/rochester-naacp-closes-gofundme-after-surpassing-goal/ (Minnesota local news)		WP:RSP, ABC news entry		✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20250505002306/https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/03/playground-racial-slurs-video-fundraiser/ (Washington, DC)		WP:WAPO		✔ Yes
https://www.newsweek.com/shiloh-hendrix-givesendgo-raises-700k-she-receives-flood-donations-2068603 (NYC-Based, national news)		~ WP:NEWSWEEK		~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20250505022142/https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-news/shiloh-hendricks-raises-more-than-591k-after-racist-rant-draws-comparison-to-karmelo-anthony-fundraiser-101746335757923.html (India national news)		~ WP:RSNOI		~ Partial
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/shiloh-hendrix-slur-karmelo-anthony-stabbing-maga-b2745949.html (UK news)		WP:THEINDEPENDENT		✔ Yes
https://archive.ph/eMaIF		WP:DAILYWIRE, being used for POV rather than verification.		✘ No
https://www.adl.org/resources/article/white-supremacists-help-raise-hundreds-thousands-woman-who-hurled-slur-black		WP:RSPADL		✔ Yes
https://newrepublic.com/article/194925/shiloh-hendrix-right-ring-fundraising		WP:NEWREPUBLIC		✔ Yes
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/shiloh-hendrix-is-not-a-victim/		~ WP:NATIONALREVIEW		~ Partial
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}}.

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wasianpower, are these all original reporting? If so, that would make them primary sources. I'd expect to see this situation used as a WP:CASESTUDY for internet racism controversies more broadly if it were notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best article written so far about this incident is, IMO, this article by The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/shiloh-hendrix-slur-karmelo-anthony-stabbing-maga-b2745949.html Some1 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, some of them are original reporting, but definitely not all of them (the second independent source for example is firmly secondary, while the local/affiliate sources are the most primary). There are a few "case studies" per se (see the Daily Wire example and examples in the independent), but we're definitely still in the initial round of coverage. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources which could potentially be helpful to establish notability: [2], [3], [4]. I've added them to the SAT and struck and struck primary sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another good article by ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/woman-called-black-child-slur-raised-backlash-thousands-121576616 Some1 (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would call this incident and the resulting fundraiser notable--using the dictionary definition, not Wikipedia's. We've seen thousands, even millions, raised for those accused of murder, but have we ever seen nearly a million dollars raised for a woman who used the N-word against a (reportedly) 5-year old Black autistic child? Some1 (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, not Wikipedia's definition of notable. Plenty of odd things happen. We do not write articles for them unless they pass our guidelines. This does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of WP:NEVENT says The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", so I guess it's similar in a way to the dictionary definition?

It's too early to tell if the incident will have WP:LASTING effects, but WP:LASTING also says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." (emphasis mine) One conservative commentator (Matt Walsh, writing for the Daily Wire) said: "How The Shiloh Hendrix Case Killed Cancel Culture" "This is the most devastating attack on cancel culture that we have seen, possibly ever." I don't doubt that people, on either side of the political spectrum, will reference the Shiloh Hendrix case months or even years from now as part of their societal or political commentary. Some sources in wasianpower's table, such as the Independent[5], Daily Wire[6] and New Republic[7], are already analyzing this incident in a way that meets WP:CASESTUDY (though again, this is the initial coverage period).

On the other hand... I do think RSes are taking the person who filmed the incident at face value and are treating his claims as facts. Apparently the Rochester Police Department is sending the results of their investigation into the incident to the city attorney's office for review and potential charges... So the Wikipedia article might be harmful to the woman if some things turned out to be inaccurate. So maybe erring on the safe side and deleting the article might be the better approach? Hard to tell. Some1 (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I do not argue for deleting every single new article just because it's new, but there are obviously ones we should and should not make, there are indications. It's not like we can't delete recent articles on events that will obviously not be notable. It's a guessing name to see if this is notable and this is a fairly small scale internet controversy so it is extremely doubtful it will. Sure, I'm guessing that, but by guessing it will that's just the same. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fairly small scale internet controversy That's what I thought this whole thing was when I first read about it this past Sunday, until I saw more RSes reporting on it this week and people debating about it on places such the Piers Morgan show. The article has received 10,222 page views in two days, which is not an insignificant amount. Apparently it's more than what the Elon Musk salute controversy article received when it was created. Some1 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think it was a bigger deal if there was better sourcing than one tolerable piece from the independent. Everything else is local or bad. Well, I don't think that views are a proper comparison there, since I bet most people just went to check the main Musk article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the New Republic piece is also a high-quality source, and the ADL piece is a good analysis. The National Review is not my favorite source, but its piece also decent from the perspective of a case study. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call the ADL piece "good analysis". The New Republic piece is seemingly an opinion piece. I don't even think we can use the National Review as a source (if we can, I did not get the memo, because it would have been very helpful in the past if I could have used that on some articles...) PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NATIONALREVIEW it's a partisan source which should be attributed but can be used. I also disagree that the TNR piece is an opinion piece; it's tagged as "media criticism" by its RS rather than "opinion", it's an essay using the Hendrix case as a case study in racism in the American political system. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RE the last point, I think it's fairly unlikely that the police investigation results in any charges, but only time will tell. Either way though, I think we're pretty good from a BLP perspective in terms of not reporting anything that can't be verified by watching the video. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's not a crime, this is an article heavily about a non-public figure BLP and one event. Crime is not the end all be all of BLP issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shiloh Hendrix publicly identified herself as the woman in the video, she chose to become a public figure and identify herself with the contents of the video. The only person NPF applies to in the article is Sharmake Omar, and we are being careful in our coverage of him. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'm not sure that the video is the specific topic here. I think there are three parts: the incident, the video including reactions to it and the fundraiser. That said, there does seem to be a topic here. The fact that it has had RS coverage outside of the USA proves that this is not just some minor, non-notable or artificial controversy even if it is not (yet?) a truly major one. I don't see the BLP concerns. The woman chose to identify herself and we are not digging into the backgrounds of either of the named people in the article. If there were valid BLP concerns then they seem to be resolved now. The coverage looks reasonably sustained, so far, but it's too early to call it. If the coverage continues then that will push it firmly into "keep" territory. Given the various questions of whether to charge over the incident itself and over the fundraiser, I think this is more likely than not. I expect a lot of awful "think pieces" about whether it is OK to say the N word now/yet. Ugh... --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed A. Alrodhan (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)

Page which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Saudi Arabia. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Citations not enough for this very highly cited field (quite apart from the general issue raised here[8]). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. doesnt pass WP:NPROF by a long shot. --hroest 01:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPROF. Some academic works are there but not enough to meet criteria. Fails WP:GNG. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF, probably wikipedia should not have a article on it, fails WP:NBASIC. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Every professor should not have their own page, it needs to be shown that they are notable enough to be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Trace Fryer (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've done a deep BEFORE search on this person by all three names she has used, as well as the name of her gallery, but have not found much more than social media, primary sources, user-submitted content. Note that there are two other people named Trace Fryer out there so a careful search is necessary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. There were couple mentions of shows that took place at her gallery, but no mention of her or about the gallery itself, so does not meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. As a musician I could find nothing. I found one thing that she wrote, for STEAM Journal, but that's not enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Current sourcing is not enough to establish notability either. Bringing this here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Source Assessment Table below

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Animal Human Art in Steam Journal - https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=steam	Two images of her work and an artist statement authored by the artist	User-submitted content	Two images and one short artist's statement	✘ No
Steam Journal table of contents - https://scholarship.claremont.edu/steam/	It's the same publication as above, just the table of contents for the journal which lists her name	Table of contents for user submitted content	Table of contents listing her name only	✘ No
The Knot - https://www.theknot.com/us/lady-trace-johnson-and-lord-john-fryer-oct-2024	Wedding announcement and gift registry	User-submitted content	wedding announcement in a template	✘ No
Outer Circle - https://www.geechungdesign.com/recognition/archive/GCD-2006-OuterCircle8.pdf	Art Center Alumni newsletter	User-sumbitted announcement of a show she was in	One sentence stating she had a work in a show	✘ No
Animal Studies Association - https://animalstudies.org.au/about	Association	Australian association	Mission statement for the Association, does not mention the artist at all	✘ No
Animal Studies Association image gallery - https://animalstudies.org.au/gallery	~ Association website with images by artists	Association	One image by her in a display of about 30 other artists	✘ No
TAJ Art, Inc. - https://www.tajartinc.com/bcorp	B-Corporation statement about her own gallery	Tax status and mission statement by the gallery she owns	User-submitted content, written by the artist themself	✘ No
The Coldwater Story - https://coldwaterstory.com/2022/02/01/bye-bye-boring-gray-utility-boxes/	Blog that accepts user-submitted content	Blog with a mission of "Want Your Pics Published Here?	One sentence mention about a unicorn painted on a utility box by the artist Starlah Burke and this artist using the name Trace Johnson (one of the three names she uses)	✘ No
ArtNews - https://www.artnews.com/art-news/market/galleries-partner-to-present-latin-american-and-latinx-artists-as-part-of-pacific-standard-time-lala-8673/	Press release about galleries who will provide art for a show	Reliable art magazine	Simply lists the name of the gallery owned by Trace Fryer	✘ No
Art Week - https://www.londonartweek.artweek.com/venue-name/taj-art	Reliable weekly art tabloid	Been around for years	An image of an artist's work who showed at her art gallery (Name-check's the gallery's name only)	✘ No
Artillery Magazine - https://artillerymag.com/events/perfectly-imperfect/	Press release for a show at the gallery	Art magazine seems reliable	Press release - user-submitted content	✘ No
Animal-Human Art - https://scholarship.claremont.edu/steam/vol4/iss2/23/	Table of contents listing the artist's name for a short artist statement and written by the artist, same as citation	User-submitted content	Artist statement by the artist and two images of her work	✘ No
Animal Studies Association - https://animalstudies.org.au/gallery	~ Duplicate of citation 6	User-submitted content to an Association's website	One image in a website "gallery" among ~thirty other artists	✘ 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 table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Animal Human Art in Steam Journal - https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&context=steam	Two images of her work and an artist statement authored by the artist		Reference to her acceptance to an international art exhibition.	✔ Yes
Steam Journal table of contents - https://scholarship.claremont.edu/steam/	Accepted artwork in publication about Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics education (STEAM education).	Table of contents for user submitted content	Table of contents listing her name only	✔ Yes
Outer Circle - https://www.geechungdesign.com/recognition/archive/GCD-2006-OuterCircle8.pdf	Art Center Alumni newsletter	Confirmation by the publication that she is a graduate, year of graduation, as well as mention of notable exhibition at the San Diego Natural History Museum.	One sentence stating she had a work in a notable show.	✔ Yes
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}}.

• Comment regarding the second source assessment table. None of the these three sources meet WP:GNG by a long shot. The Human Animal Art piece in Steam Journal is not independent nor is it secondary, because she wrote it, created the two images and submitted it herself to the journal. A two sentence artist statement she wrote herself is not significant coverage. WP needs to know what others have said about her and her work, not what she says about it. WP:SIGCOV would be something like an independent column-long review about her work in a notable art magazine or newspaper (authored by someone else), or a chapter on her work in an art history book. The second source is simply an entry on a table of contents listing her name and the title of the artist statement she wrote. That is not significant coverage, it is non-independent trivial coverage, a simple name check. The last one is a single sentence in her alumni newsletter, therefore non-independent, stating that she had a piece in a show. That is not in-depth, independent significant coverage either. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand what you are saying and I will look for that type of article as well as improved references. Starlighsky (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Poetry, Visual arts, Museums and libraries, Business, and California. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The uniqueness of the artist working with and publishing articles in animal culture and related issues is noteworthy. Starlighsky (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Starlighsky — Note: Starlightsky is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

  Keep 73.247.25.130 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC) — 73.247.25.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  KEEP, This person has several credible sources online showcasing their artistic contributions as well as humanitarian causes, including a website listed under https://www.tajartinc.com/ which has been registered since 2015, and https://somethingromantical.com/ which showcases Trace's current musical venture. SensoryX (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)— SensoryX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Both of these citations are user-submitted content by the artist themself, so they do not contribute to notability. I'm really curious as to how @SensoryX and the IP 73.247.25.130 above found this specific AfD out of the blue to make your first edits ever to the encyclopedia. Please explain, as it's unusual. Netherzone (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am submitted this information because I have seen this person's work, and have been to their establishments in the past, I am not the person noted in this article. I am not submitting on anyone's behalf, Im only submitting my own personal information that I know to be true. Im also not responsible for your feelings of "this being unusual", so I do not have to explain that. Is this site now authenticated based on if something being typical now?

  I'm not sure why your expressing personal feelings here, wikipedia is meant to showcase information about the articles headline, and I have done so. I'm only speculating, but you seem to have a personal issue or agenda with this page unrelated to its authenticity. SensoryX (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, no. Saying it's "unusual" is not a feeling, it is an observation. Wikipedia has almost 7 million articles; it is unusual that two brand new editors, who have never edited WP before would find this specific AfD out of the blue to make their very first edits. And no, I do not have any personal issues or agendas. Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For the previous voter, uniqueness is not the same as notability, which is required for a Wikipedia article that covers how/if she has made a mark in independent media. This one is an attempted resume and personal portfolio like any that could be found at her own sites. It appears that she is making an honest living with some intriguing art and writing, but there is not enough for an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to add that the author is unique in the creation of Animal-Human art. Uniqueness is mentioned in WP:NAUTHOR as "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique;".Starlighsky (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]

@I respectfully disagree that this artist was unique in creating "Animal-Human art". Depictions of animal-human hybrids have been around since prehistoric cave painting. Also, consider depictions of the Griffin, Minotaur, Centaur and other mythological creatures. Netherzone (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any individual work or art could be considered unique because it was created by a human being, but the more important requirement in the cited provision is "significantly new" for which I agree with Netherzone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My line of reasoning is that it is significantly new because of the contemporary publications and exhibitions with science related societies such as the following:

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Stasi&lang=en&q=STEAM_education#The_STEAM_Journal

Australasian Animal Studies Association Starlighsky (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The STEAM journal citation is user-submitted content authored by the artist, it consists of two images and a short bio. It is not independent significant coverage. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are not about hybrids, though.

The contemporary artwork address abstract issues like the work of Eckhart Tolle did. Starlighsky (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for another inquiry about this but it's unclear what you are saying. Could you provide an example of what you mean by "Animal-Human art"? What is the definition of this genre, and what are the reliable sources that state she is the innovator of "Human-Animal art"? Is it something Eckhardt Tolle wrote about her work? Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthrozoology is a good reference point to what Human-Animal art is in contemporary art. The Australasian Animal Studies Association (AASA) is a society that addresses this in terms of their contemporary art exhibitions. I will look up references on this issue. Starlighsky (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with the field of Animal Studies, and many artists who have worked in that field. In fact, I can think of many other contemporary artists who have been working in that area for decades. What is needed are citations that specifically state that she originated/created the field. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are various artists who have approached this topic, yes.

I just to add that the issue is separate to what was discussed near the top of this thread. There is artwork of human animal hybrids, but the artwork about human animal behavior in terms of science is a separate issue.

The artist did not start the movement, but is unique in that the artwork was covered by a journal on Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and Mathematics education (STEAM education) as well as the Australasian Animal Studies Association in terms of their exhibition of the art of the person from the U.S.. Starlighsky (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Lacks RS for the claims made. In 2024, she married English musician and record producer John Fryer citing "The Knot"!? WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I took the recommendations and improved the citations, and even added more information with citations. I am glad to get your opinion on the improvements. Starlighsky (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Starlighsky Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citation overkill, and also the source assessment table above. I flagged the statement While in college she illustrated for The Beastly Ball at the Los Angeles Zoo. The Beastly Ball is a fundraiser with interactive events for and at the Greater Los Angeles Zoo Association. which was cited with this https://zoo-guide.com/la-zoos-beastly-ball-2024-an-overview/. The citations shows that the The Beastly Ball exists, but there is no mention of Trace Fryer that I can see, You removed the {{fails verification| date= May 2025}} tag without providing any new information to prove the statement. Please slow down and see if you can respond to the notability issues with reliable sourcing, not just more of the same unreliable sourcing. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What happened is that the illustration for the Beastly Ball is published, but the source will not meet the standards for Wikipedia. I thought it was logical to delete the statement about the illustration work until I can find a reliable source for it. I will keep working on it. Starlighsky (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you removed the statement, but please, scroll up to the top of this entry, expand the Source Assessment Table and try to understand the concept of reliable sourcing, and why this article on a BLP was nominated for deletion. Thanks. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I will work on the issues that you have brought up. I created a 2nd opinion source assessment table with what in my opinion are reliable sources. I will work on the issues that you present in the 1st source assessment table. Starlighsky (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are never a reliable source. Please read Help:Introduction to referencing/Reliable sources --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that from the table and will try to find a better reference. Thank you for your insight. Starlighsky (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Gunn (toy) (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)

Couldn't find sources, seems to fail WP:NPRODUCT, long time unsourced page. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article has been improved significantly after nomination. Therefore I changed my voting status. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT, and WP:HEY. Please do read the article now, Tommy Gunn. The article has been expanded, revised, and fully sourced now to books and newspaper articles, including book links listed on the article Talk page by Kvng when the article was de-prodded last year. (Click on the third link, the Action Figures book by Arthur Ward, where you'll see many pages and illustrations of Tommy Gunn action figures; it seems to work better than the link I added to the same book within the article itself in terms of display though your mileage may vary depending on where you are based.) It's good practice to look at the article history before nominating for deletion, as it will help you understand whether the article is lacking sources due to vandalism or something else, or if it has been nominated for deletion previously. When evaluating articles about history, it's also good practice to search for books and other offline sources as part of your WP:BEFORE search. For sure get registered for Wikipedia Library, as you both may be eligible and the Internet Archive is a good resource as well. Requesting reconsideration and withdrawal by nominator and !delete voter, as both of you will have to agree to keep/withdraw before this discussion can be closed early. @Samoht27 and Rahmatula786: Over to you. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article has been significantly improved by Cielquiparle since nomination. Nom's concerns have been addressed. ~Kvng (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG seem to be met here. Perhaps if there were fewer sources this would not be notable enough but the sources support it and it is the British version of a GI Joe (likely to be notable). Therefore, I think it should be included, unless I am missing something. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Arkell (disambiguation) (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)

2/3 of the people listed here do not have an article of their own, and thus do not meet notability standards. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 20:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Lists of people, and Disambiguations. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 20:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One entry, the father of a notable person, IMO fails WP:DABMENTION, which means that WP:TWODABS applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Quinlan (author) (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)

Author and onetime political candidate. Doesn't seem to have received a great deal of coverage, and the article reads like a promotional bio you'd find on his website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG multiple trusted sources found.𝒮𝓎𝓃𝒸-!⃝
• Keep per GNG. An article's quality is not a factor at AFD.--User:Namiba 12:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs cleanup, but the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3 as the author of a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Reviews of Smoked in The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, The LA Times (part interview), The Mail on Sunday, Entertainment Weekly and the Birmingham Post. Reviews of The Takedown in The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Financial Times, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews and The Derby Evening Telegraph. Review of The Drop Off in The Australian. I haven't done a search for his other books, but I think those reviews are enough to pass NAUTHOR (although I'm not really sure how the subject could pass GNG...) MCE89 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article needs to be substantially rewritten, but the subject does pass WP:GNG. Leonstojka (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject passes WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be substantial coverage here that would justify inclusion as well as meeting the WP:GNG. Therefore, this page should be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C. Jacobson (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)

Businessman and onetime political candidate whose main claim to fame is that he used to lead a nonprofit that doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I can't find any news coverage of him since his 2010 campaign, not that he ever really received any in-depth coverage to begin with. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maine. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for a BLP, there is an awfully lot of information that isn't sourced is is poorly sourced. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage to establish notability. Frank Ken (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced promotion article, no evidence of significant coverage. Leonstojka (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article uses a bunch of unreliable sources and dead links to bolster its inclusion. When you remove the lack of RSes and the dead links, you easily fail WP:SIGCOV here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Robitaille (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)

Businessman and onetime political candidate. I don't see an argument for him being notable. I couldn't find any news coverage of him from the last 15 years. There were some articles from November 2024 about a candy store owned by a John Robitaille, but that store was in California, so I doubt it's the same person. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I remember this candidate. He was up and coming. 2010 was the year the Republicans snatched defeat from victory. I'm not sure if it should be merged or redirected to the election article, in lieu of deleting, which I think would be a bad outcome. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting Controller (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)

None of the references establish notability. I see only a few relevant hits on Google (The company name is very generic, though.): [9][10][11][12] and similar. All of them seemingly fail all criteria of WP:SIRS. This PDF could possibly have some SIRS coverage on the product, but I think that that is too little to establish notability. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respectfully oppose the deletion of this article.

Hosting Controller is a long-standing and recognized name in automating service provisioning, user management, billing and metering for various on-premises and Cloud services including web hosting, Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, Skype for Business, Azure and Microsoft CSP program, with over two decades of history and global usage. While the company name may appear generic, the product and brand "Hosting Controller" have a distinct and established presence, especially within the Windows hosting and hybrid cloud automation space.

The following points support notability:

External Review:

There are third-party sources, including [industry articles, hosting review platforms, and integration announcements] that cover Hosting Controller’s product offerings, partnerships, and impact in the hosting industry. These sources include:

Articles in web hosting review platforms.

Mentions and integrations with Microsoft Exchange, Hyper-V, and other enterprise systems.

Inclusion in hosting control panel comparisons and industry whitepapers.

Longevity and Industry Use:

Hosting Controller has been active since at least 1999, with a consistent product line evolving with market demands—from shared hosting control panels to hybrid cloud automation solutions.

Product Uniqueness:

Its support for hybrid environments (Windows/Linux/cloud) and integration with platforms like Microsoft Exchange, SharePoint, and Office 365 sets it apart from more common cPanel-style products.

Potential Sources:

The company documentation (e.g., whitepapers, PDFs) may not seem like SIRS at first glance, but many are cited or used by third parties in evaluations, comparisons, or implementation case studies. I’m happy to help surface more third-party mentions if needed.

Given the depth of its niche, industry presence, and long-term use, I believe Hosting Controller meets the criteria for notability and request that the article be improved rather than deleted. Zaighum Khalique (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the URLs you have found. I haven't found anything except the said PDF document. Janhrach (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only example of third-party coverage is this 2020 interview in a Catholic magazine. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kansas. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are also a handful of, often brief, book reviews, but it doesn't look hopeful[13][14][15] Jahaza (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jima Francis (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 South Sudanese journalist does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in the article (or found in BEFORE search) are all his own writing ([16]) or sources affiliated with him and thus not independent ([17], [18], [19], [20]). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sudan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find significant coverage to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Australians Party (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 wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only two mentions in Crikey ([21], [22]). toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Australia. toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The best I could find was a couple of sentences in the Courier Mail [23]. Can't find anything approaching SIGCOV. I suppose we could redirect to List of historical political parties in Australia where it has an entry, but I'm not convinced that list should really be including non-notable entries anyway. MCE89 (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it received a rounding error of the vote. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough sources to establish WP:NCORP, neither in the article, or online. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major general nik mohammad sahak (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 was created by User:Nik Mohammad sahak who is literally named after the article's subject. The draft was rejected multiple times. A google search doesn't yield anything about the name. The guy allegedly died in 1398 and has a photograph of him. Photography was invented in 1826. The only google search result is a document at WikiLeaks. Laura240406 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 1398 is probably based on a different dating system, possibly Islamic? A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that would put his death at 1970 which makes sense Laura240406 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does that photo look doctored to anyone else? It looks like the face has been copied and pasted on top of someone else's body. That aside, this fails WP:V, which is a core policy. Using the Farsi name, I can find some social media coverage of a "General Nik Mohammad Khan Mangal" but nothing about this person. Given that the username matches the article's subject, I would bet that this is a vanity hoax. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think this person is a real historical figure since I did find a mention of the article subject in a declassified US government document while searching. However, there probably isn't significant coverage since searching the native language name from the article doesn't yield many results on Google. All in all, I think this is probably a WP:GNG fail but open to hearing from editors who speak any Afghan languages on what sources exist.Aspening (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it may be the work of Jared. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even on the off chance this isn't a hoax, it definitely isn't notable enough for an article due to the utter lack of sources covering this person

ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources used hardly qualify as RSes. Therefore, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG generally are not met. This person is not notable enough for inclusion. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus City, California (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:NPLACE. Seems to be just a rest stop. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This place is not a place according to the US census, and fails the GNG along with that. No mention in the gazeteer file for the us census in CA, -- [24] AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence this was ever a place that met GNG/NPLACE. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This fails to meet WP:NPLACE and just the WP:GNG generally. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More of a village than a city. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not a reason for deletion Geschichte (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete At the moment the only real testimony for this is Durham, and without seeing what he actually said, we cannot trust this statement: he has been misrepresented in these articles. Everything else I could find was a hit on the place in Texas or related to either a pipeline pumping station or a proposed power line, except for a self-published book about a cross-country trip in which the travellers stop at a store here for ice. That part of the story is plausible, based on what the topos and the one old aerial show, but they also are entirely consistent with the store being the only thing here; in any case everything was wiped away in favor of the rest area, which is considerably larger in extent than anything preceding it. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wilkinson-Smith (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)

Clearly promotional BLP filled with puffery. The only indication of notability is the article's assertion that the subject was appointed to a quasi-governmental office of "crown solicitor". The position is of so little notability that we don't have an article on it; and regardless, the cited source only states that the article's subject was briefly acting in the role and did not formally hold it. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and New Zealand. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More puffery than a plate of puffed pastries. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above - we are not LinkedIn - but I note that he was "president of the Criminal Bar Association" (which one?). Bearian (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Frank Ken (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just to note a Crown Solicitor is a private lawyer hired by the Crown for prosecutions. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There do not seem to be enough RSes to justify inclusion here. This also seems to be a bit of puffery. Therefore, it should not be included.

Antelope Center, California (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:NPLACE, Nothing more than a post. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's a CDP called "antelope," but it's in Sacramento. I think this is a neighborhood, failing NPLACE and the GNG. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. or Merge with Antelope Valley. There really is such a place, but too small for its own article. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete or possibly redirect to Sun Valley, California Sun Village, California, in which CDP this spot lies. This seems to be a name at the NW corner of the great sprawl which is Sun Vallage, but I cannot find any evidence that it was a settlement unto itself, and Gbook hits are all appearances in various lists of place names which don't say anything of substance. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused, one person says it's a real place in Antelope Valley, one says it's in Sacramento, and one says it's in Sun Valley. I have never heard of an "Antelope Center" part of Sun Valley. and I've been to Sun Valley many times before. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, mistyped. It's Sun Village. not sun Valley. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I suggest the article be merge to Antelope Valley.Frank Ken (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Being the only high school in a city does not make a school notable. Upon search, the subject does not seem to be notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Tucumcari Public Schools. --hroest 21:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tucumcari Public Schools. Lorstaking (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Tucumcari Public Schools per WP:ATD and longstanding practice. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Tucumcari Public Schools. Every school on Earth should not get its own page if it is not notable under the current framework. Therefore, here it makes sense to redirect it to a more notable page. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Williams (cosmetologist) (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 be notable per WP:GNG. Many of the references in the article do not seem to be independent of the subject, and upon search, it does not seem like this subject is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. At first I thought it was about a cosmologist. But no, must deleter. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite de Baugé (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)

Nomination: Notability questioned. Very little information in article besides that she owned a castle and married someone else who may be notable.ash (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment One source [25] says that she founded the charterhouse of Poletins-en-Bresse (which this article states that she was buried at). It seems likely that a woman who bought a castle and founded a charterhouse in the 13th century would have something written about her. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:59, 6 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 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Biographies in books from the 1600s and 1700s [26], [27], showing notability several hundred years after hear death. Many hits in the BNF Gallica as well [28] Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Humbert V de Beaujeu. The sources above just repeat the same few facts about her genealogy and dowry (and founding a monastery), which are certainly worth including in her husband's article, however. Ingratis (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC) see below[reply]
• Keep I have added sources and info, and I believe that she meets WP:BASIC at least. As Oaktree b has noted, she is included in histories published many centuries after her death. There is information that she was buried in the choir of the church of the Charterhouse of Poletins, which has been described as "one of the most sacred parts of the church and a very prestigious place for burials" [29]. If we had an article about the Charterhouse of Poleteins, that might be a suitable target for a merge or redirect, but I do not think it would be suitable to merge to her husband's article. He was busy going on crusades and visiting Constantinople, and being governor of Languedoc), whereas she was active in the Ain département. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, she had her own seal [30]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, based on additions by Rebecca Green which show that she M de B did more than being genealogical. Ingratis (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP: HEY. Another rescue by RebeccaGreen. Bearian (talk)

World Meditation Day (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 not seeing any reliable-source secondary coverage of this UN General Assembly-declared awareness day for a pass of WP:GNG. Like the sources in the article, the sources in the WP:BEFORE search are all unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA churnalism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Spirituality. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have so far found newspaper articles about a World Meditation Day in June in 1968, and on the 3rd Sunday of each month in 1988. Still looking for this one .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This one is tricky. I found about a hundred different news articles in Indian and Nepalese newspapers and magazines, but WP:NEWSORGINDIA warns us to be careful to use them to establish notability, since they aren't reliable. In these case, maybe there are some of them which could be reliable, since they're reporting the primary source, but sorting them out could be troublesome. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, I found a few reliable news articles, in Spanish: [31] [32] [33] and a couple of articles in English: [34] [35] -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add two other links which seem reliable enough: [36] [37]

Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:10, 7 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 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources supplied by Itzcuauhtli11: Clarin, Noticias RCN, and Cadena are unbylined and read as churnalism. MIU is affiliated with one of the creators of World Meditation Day and thus of questionable independence. 17 Global Goals is a site whose mission is to promote UN activities, and Friends is a pro-transcendental meditation initiative. SBS Hindi seems to be the only truly secondary, independent, reliable coverage offered of this holiday. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not betting the independence of the sources I gave. It's not clear for me if Clarín engages in churnalism.

I'd like to add that The Indian Express WP:INDIANEXP is considered reliable and has two articles on the subject: [38] [39]. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bat Cave (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 be notable upon search - there are articles such as the Austin Chronicle, but they are not WP:SIGCOV so there's no reason to presume that the subject is notable. The current state of the article also only has one reference, which is their own website. Also slight WP:NPOV issues. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, I have begun to add references to the article and fix the language. I am still finding more refs, but it is already a very different article than what it was before. StonyBrook _babble 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This literacy organization meets GNG and NCORP by way of the following newspaper articles that are available via the Newspaper Archive & Newspapers.com (requires access): Daily Texan (9 Nov 2015) Nonprofit Austin Bat Cave teaches, publishes children's creative writing which is a front page newspaper feature article (two pages long, with photo); Brownsville Herald a half-page article (29 July 2019) with four photographs Expressive Project: Teaching writing is as important as reading; Lockhart Post Register (8 September 2022) Evening with the Authors a paragraph on the founder of Austin Bat Cave; The Paducah Sun (18 July 2019) Is teaching writing as important as teaching reading? feature article with three photos of Austin Bat Cave, later picked up by the The Saginaw News 23 August 2019) and circulated nationally; Austin American-Statesman (12 Jan 2017) Out - several paragraphs and a photo of the founder; Austin American-Statesman (16 April 2011) Tutors with Austin Bat Cave help students get their wings - feature article with photo on the front page of the "Life & Arts" section, continued on a second page as a half-page article with three more photos; and more. These sources (and others) clearly provide the required secondary Significant Coverage in multiple reliable sources that are fully independent of the organization over an extended period of time - for years. The coverage addresses the subject in-depth and directly. I agree with StonyBrook that the article may need cleaning up and improvements, however that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:35, 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 16:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H Elovitz (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I could only find 2 academic reviews of a book that he co-edited: [40] [41] which is not enough for WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. However, he was the founder and editor in chief of Clio's Psyche which could contribute to WP:NPROF#8 but I dont know how "well established" that journal is. --hroest 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That journal is open access and publishes three to four issues per year; it's not listed by Journal Citation Reports so doesn't have an impact factor - that doesn't count as a well-established journal in my view. Klbrain (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPONGE (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 appears to be a likely hoax or satirical fabrication. It lacks reliable sources and has no verifiable evidence that the organization ever existed. The cited references are weak, misleading, or irrelevant. This topic does not meet notability guidelines.

This article presents SPONGE as a real political pressure group, but the claim is unsupported by reliable sources and appears to be an instance of misinformation. The only verifiable mentions of “SPONGE” refer to its use as a racist acronym or gag — not an actual organization. The 1978 Lewiston Evening Journal article documents a high school prank, not group activity. The 1999 commentary by Earl Ofari Hutchinson refers to an alleged use of the term within a police department, but offers no evidence of an actual group. The only historical book cited mentions SPONGE briefly, without treating it as real or notable.

In effect, the Wikipedia article is the fourth appearance of SPONGE, not documenting a group, but continuing the pattern of SPONGE being used as a recurring racist gag. There is no substantiated continuity, structure, or notability. Instead, this article appears to be a case of citogenesis or hoax propagation. It does not meet the standards of verifiability or notability and should be deleted. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:32, 29 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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE and SALT per nom as a repeated (racist) hoax. No doubt someone finds this funny, but there is no place for such things on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT sources even state it is fictitious. Delete per others reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE and SALT sources don't support claims. SPONGE was a racist inside joke. Article clearly a hoax. Dracophyllum 23:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @InvisibleUser909, Chiswick Chap, Czarking0, and Dracophyllum: Could we pump the brakes on the claims of this being a hoax and exhortations to protect the page from recreation? A previous AFD resulted in the article being kept, based on the book source (which does not treat the group as "fictitious") [42], this book review which suggests the group is covered in detail in one of its subjects, and contemporary mentions in the magazine Jet [43][44]. Additionally, there are several contemporary articles about the group in the New York Times (ex. [45][46][47]) and a Google Books search reveals even more potential sources. I'm not certain any of that means the article should be kept, as a slang dictionary refers to the group as "more notional than real" and one of the NYT articles above states that the group "has no office or headquarters, no constitution or charter, no officers or recognized leaders, no regular meetings, no staff and no agreement on what constitutes membership," but it at least deserves a more detailed discussion than what has taken place so far. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SPONGE was definitely a racist in-joke, per:

  • Its name had long been an in- side joke among neighborhood whites and played off their belief that blacks were “sponging” off the government at their expense. – The Ungonverable City

  Evidence for SPONGE as an organisation comes mostly from a small (<100) group of white (mostly Italian-American) youths who adopted the name. They got in the News when they: "battled members of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) who were protesting the lack of opportunities for blacks at the World’s Fair."

  A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. Per one of the news articles:

  • Sponge the "organization" that jeered at Mayor Lindsay in East New York Thursday night and later staged an antiNegro demonstration that provoked a reply in gunshots, beer and soda bottles really is not an organization at all."

  It is even clear that each action is from the same group? The name was spread through many different circles and communities. SPONGE at most deserves a few sentences in an article on Integration or racism in the period in question. Dracophyllum 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. That has nothing to do with any notability criteria. Notability will depend on whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete + Salt - per above. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not salt and weak keep: Folks, just search the term in Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. There is a lot of coverage about the topic in reliable sources. I'm fine with deciding that the current article could deserve WP:TNT, but I'm really against salting here, since it's conceivable that someone would write a good article about it. MarioGom (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is more or less where I'm at too; it doesn't make any sense to salt the page, which is obviously not a hoax, and even TNTing it seems like an overreaction when the issues with it could be solved by rewriting it or possibly merging it with an appropriate target (I couldn't find a page on the riots the group participated in, but East New York#Economic downturn is one option). Right now my bold vote is Keep per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, needs work seems somewhat notable, with coverage in secondary sources such as [48], [49]. Got contemporary news coverage as well, [50], [51]. I do think it might make sense to redirect/merge somewhere else, but I don't think that outright deletion makes sense, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion after consensus has trended from "get rid of it totally" to potentially salvageable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is notable and salvageable. Obviously not a hoax. It's short and bad but so are many articles and it's not so bad as to be TNT worthy. There are tons of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Adyeri Omalla (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 is not notable businessperson; the awards are not notable either. I cannot find proper third party reliable of the subject references. Seems the journalists are not very interested in this topic. Norlk (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UN link looks "good" but when you click on it and read it gives an interview format coverage, not reliable and not suitable for BLP:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1093392

Julian Omalla, who is widely known as “Mama Cheers” after the popular juice brand “Cheers” that her company Delight Uganda produces, is now planning to expand with the construction of a new factory in the north of the country.

“When I launched my company, Delight Uganda Limited, in 1996, I didn’t know much about running a business. I started it from scratch, and had to overcome many challenges.

I remember walking for many kilometres, on bad roads, and working in my garden from morning to night. One of the low points came when my business partner ran off with all of the money I had raised to buy stock. All I had left was a wheelbarrow, to take fruit to market, and one red dress!

I couldn’t get any banks to finance my business, because I didn’t have any collateral, so raising funds to expand was an uphill task. Like most women in Uganda, I had to rely on savings and invest my profits back into the company.

This link https://unctad.org/news/prize-winning-ugandan-woman-entrepreneur-grows-juice-business-improves-community provides no significant coverage either, and neither this one https://observer.ug/business/julian-omalla-wins-un-award-for-inclusive-business-model/

Omalla thanked Enterprise Uganda and UNCTAD for the award, and pledged to continue working to support uplift rural women from poverty.

She said that she intends to reach at least one million women from the current 500,000, over the next 10 years. She also noted that Delight is in the process of installing a modern processing plant in the region so as to increase its capacity to be able to buy and process all the fruits produced by women farmers. Norlk (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...So is this a keep or delete, @Norlk ? Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There plenty of sources about her including couple of articles in New Vision (1, 2) and Daily Monitor (1, 2, 3)which are respected publications in Uganda. Also not sure why we suddenly think UN News is not reliable. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this page was previously nominated for deletion, and passed/kept. What is the new claim with the current nom? FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackloaded (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 website. Fails NCORP or the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Trackloaded meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) through significant coverage in independent, reliable sources:

• • Mentioned in Pulse Nigeria, referencing its lyrics/media section
  • Cited by Legit.ng in entertainment industry commentary
  • Awarded "Best Entertainment News Media Platform" by MEA Markets in 2024
  • Recognized as "Best Entertainment & Media Platform – West Africa" at Innovation in Business Awards 2024
  • Reached 4.4 million listeners on Audiomack, indicating real-world cultural and public impact

The article is neutrally written and sourced to meet the notability criteria under both GNG and NCORP for media-related topics. It documents a notable Nigerian digital platform with verified third-party recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oloyede2003 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The sources in the article and the ones given by Oloyede2003 aren't reliable or only mention the subject. I haven't found any other RS. WP:NCORP isn't met. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Trackloaded meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through independent coverage, recognized industry awards, and multiple media citations. It was reviewed by an experienced editor (User:Skynxnex), confirming its neutrality and quality. The article documents a verifiable and notable digital platform. — Oloyede2003 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Two notes @Oloyede2003: you should only cast a single bolded WP:!VOTE per discussion, so I'd suggest striking this one. Secondly, I marked it as reviewed as per the WP:New pages patrol guidelines since its notability will be evaluated by the community since it was nominated for deletion so further new page reviews don't need to review it. I, at that time, took no opinion on this discussion. Skynxnex (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (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 significance of the person is not shown. Only genealogical information and the cause of his death are given. – RobertVikman 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (his father) per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came here expecting this to be an easy delete !vote on a non-notable minor noble. However, a web search for "christoph zu hohenlohe", one version of his German name, turns up a bunch of significant coverage: [65][66][67], most of it about his death but some from long afterwards (that last link is from 2020). I'm gonna do a deeper dive for sourcing, but I'm leaving this here for now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is English-language sigcov on his death the Independent article already cited in the article [68], and French/German coverage in "L'étrange mort d' un noble lausannois", L'Illustré, 16.08.2006 by Arnaud Bédat; "Prinzessin Ira von Fürstenberg «Man hat meinen Sohn umgebracht»", Glückspost, 17.08.2006, by Marco Hirt and Roswitha vom Bruck;"Ende eines Genfer Jetset-Prinzen", Tages-Anzeiger, 11.08.2006, by Bernhard Hülsebusch. There is also an article over 1000 words long in the Sonntagsblick of 20.08.2006, titled "Keine Maiglöckchen im Knast", by Helmut-Maria Glogger.

  Good search terms include "Christoph von Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz von Hohenlohe", "Christoph zu Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg" (which appears to be his full and correct title), and "Christoph Vittorio Umberto" (his full first names). I see some articles from the time saying that his death was first reported in the Italian press, which I do not have great access too – for instance, my sources mention his brother and mother speaking to the Corriere della Sera, but I cannot find the original coverage in that paper. (The article current links to an English translation of a Corriere article, but this doesn't quote Ira, so clearly there was more.)

  I don't think BLP1E or BIO1E preclude an article here, but in case that comes up I've also found some indications that he received significant coverage before his death. He is mentioned repeatedly in articles about his mother, Ira von Fürstenberg (a very underdeveloped article – she seems to have been quite famous). In a 1978 interview of Ira in the Schweizer Illustrierte, Christoph is mentioned several times, not least when the interviewer asks "Christoph hat anscheinend, wie man in den Zeitungen lesen kann, einen Riesenerfolg bei Frauen." ("Christoph clearly has, as one can read in the newspapers, great success with women.") – so he was clearly being covered elsewhere, too. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources you specified contain information about him. But the information specified there does not give him significance according to any of Wikipedia's criteria of significance.

  When some aristocrat or any other famous person dies, they write about him in the news.

  But neither the sources nor the article show significance according to which the article could be saved. RobertVikman (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's coverage of his activities as a socialite and of his bizarre death. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article does not provide anything other than the cause of death and genealogy. What significance criterion does this article meet? RobertVikman (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the father. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Star in Sight (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)

Multiple citations failed verification. About all that seems to be passing verification are primary texts and biographies written by Thelema adherents. Article is something of a coatrack, more concerned with A∴A∴ and Great Work (Thelema) than with the actual topic of discussion. This article should be deleted with the notable material being merged, after verification of citations actually saying what they're citing, to those two articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)>[reply]
• Delete this meaningless word salad only sourced to in-bubble "sources" - what I would call "woo." (I note that there is nothing worth merging into those other two articles either.) - Roxy the dog 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Based on the sources, both ones included and not included here, it is notable for both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The primary Crowley sources are an issue as is the infamous Eye in the Triangle & Grant, but the other sources are reliable and not from believers, and there are more than that. Crowley has simply had a lot written about him, and an individual text is a discrete enough topic that it can have a defined scope. The coattrack issue is true but not the point of WP:TNT because it canjust be trimmed. I would say keep and just trim the stuff that is less about the text/puffery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You did notice the part where, before starting this AfD I found multiple citations that failed verification, yeah? A citation being in the article is not an indication the citation even mentions the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more feedback needed, relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM), WOSL (Florida). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of defunct radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A better merge source might be the media section of Pendleton, Oregon and/or the "Defunct" section of List of radio stations in Oregon. A list of defunct stations is likely a random collection of information. Note that having a single source is not in itself a deletion criterion. I've added a bit but am not claiming the article now passes WP:GNG. This isn't an official guideline but WP:NMEDIA might be instructive. Note to all at AfD: Could we pretty please link to the guidelines we are referencing, such as "GNG", in the nomination? Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to state list The main problem is that PoppysButterflies is putting pages into mainspace too early across the board. Unfortunately, while Newspapers.com just added the Pendleton paper, it is right now missing from 1947 to 1964. These should be list redirects until more sourcing can be built, but the half-baked two-sentence stub will not cut it. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's 5 sentences, haha. Anyway, it looks like oregonnews.uoregon.edu (free!) is also missing those years of the East Oregonian but it might have other papers that newspapers.com doesn't have. Again, lacking sources is not a deletion criterion. And WP:BEFORE is a good guideline, especially section D. I'm not going to go to a whole lot more effort to flesh this article out but I will note that one of the problems with media sources are they often aren't covered in other media sources. Valfontis (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak draftify: most of the creator's other half-baked recent creations of this type, also solely sourced to that one dissertation, have been shipped to draftspace/AfC; this one at least has had more of a rescue attempt by others, even if it isn't enough for now. I'm thus reluctant to outright call for deletion at this time (but nor do I completely oppose it, as more minimally-sourced permastubs in this topic area is what Wikipedia does not need — we have too many lingering remnants of long-since-rejected looser inclusion standards as it is). I do outright oppose redirecting to the list of radio stations in Oregon#Defunct at this time; it is not currently listed there and thus would be a surprise. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: better to relist to get more feedback (draftify, redirect, delete?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Street (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 is one of several very tiny side-street connecting two notable roads in Hong Kong. I have searched for WP:SIGCOV in English and Chinese and have not been able to do more than verify that it exists. The Chinese version of this article doesn't contain any further sources to help. I think we could mention it Queen's Road, Hong Kong#Queen's Road East but from what I can find there isn't a lot to add except that it's one of multiple small alley ways connecting two major roads. Zzz plant (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. It is just a minor street. This source mentions that in 1917 Tsui In Lane was widened and renamed Anton Street. This source states that it is named after Charles Edward Anton, Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co. Other sources give it passing mentions. One approach would be to redirect it to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, then expand the entry in the list of intersections in that article as
  • (N) > junction with {{anchor|Anton Street}} '''Anton Street''', a short road leading north to [[Hennessy Road]]. Created in 1917 by widening Tsui In Lane.<ref...>... Named after [[Charles Edward Anton]], Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co.<ref....>

That way the gazetteer-type information would be preserved. The other minor streets along Queen's Road East could be treated the same way. Probably less effort to boldly merge them into Queen's Road East than to put them through AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems a good idea, but I think it would look a little undue weighty in that big road article unless all of the intersections were extended beyond a line summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All the side roads should be done, including notable ones that retain their own article and ones that turn into redirects. I am not sure I have the energy to do it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Queen's Road East#Anton Street as suggested by Aymatth2 per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to elaborate slightly on my rationale -WP:Articles_for_deletion/St._Francis_Street and WP:Articles for deletion/Wood Road are similar road noms which ended in delete. If you look up Anton St on g-maps you will see it is an almost comically tiny side street, and the only real facts available are that it 1) is one of many alleys in Hong Kong connecting two notable roads and 2) was named after someone notable. My view is that the existing mentions in articlespace are sufficient, and per WP:NOTDIRECTORY I weakly disagree that there is value to preserving the page history via a merge. Zzz plant (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those AfDs were not well-attended and were from six years ago so are not good precedent to argue against a merge. Under Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, when there is a good redirect or merge target as Aymatth2 has identified, that is preferable to deletion. Another merge target could be Charles Edward Anton, the namesake of the street, whose article already mentions the street. Cunard (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to merge to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, since the purpose is to preserve gazeteer-type information, and Queen's Road East is the natural gazeteer parent. I have rearranged Queen's Road East a bit and added an anchor for Anton Street. I am not sure that the table format is ideal for a phone though. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: better to relist to get more feedback
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Queen's Road East#Anton Street. Redirects are cheap, and I see no reason why a redirect would not be appropriate. Yue🌙 23:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahishti Zewar (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)

There is no doubt that the subject is notable as a book. However, the authorship of the book is highly disputed, and even the content variations are debatable. This issue has been discussed by Ahlehaqmedia, a scholarly website. In its current form, the article would need to be entirely rewritten based on reliable sources. Given the present structure and sourcing, it is not suitable as a standalone article. I propose redirecting it to the article on Ashraf Ali Thanwi.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:DINC 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: Easily meets WP:NBOOK and WP:N for its religious significance. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest L. Cu (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 page is too promotional, with no independent reliable references. I found only company media references, several interviews and brief mentions (so called WP Routine, WP Trades). Norlk (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. How do you spell "Promo?" Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because we are not social media site. I'd redirect but I want to discourage promotional autobiography from taking up any space. FWIW, my partner is Pinoy. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay (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 app is not notable by its own, and it does not have enough reliable third party sources with journalistic significant not just press-released coverage. All the sources within the page and the ones I managed to find BEFORE are only event-based - Egypt's central bank launched... Norlk (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay is a nationally significant app in Egypt, launched under the Egyptian Central Bank's strategy for digital payments. It is widely adopted and integrated into government and private banking systems. many sources talked about it such as her bankygate.com and enterprise.news and ahram.org.eg Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article subject could be mentioned in the article about the Central Bank of Egypt and this article redirected there as an alternative to deletion. Pavlor (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A notable product in the financial world, with notability backed up by reliable sourcing.Simxaraba (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2204355 (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)

Limited sources available (Mediate, Time, Salon.com, Daily Mail based on my searching) and only coverage for about a week - no sustained coverage. Don't think it meets GNG. Upjav (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Time, Salon and Daily Mail are all the sourcing I can find. Only Time is a RS... Rest are iffy or non-RS. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear lack of WP:SIGCOV, no sources covering this past 2010. And even the TIME source doesn't have any detail past "When you search that this shows up" ApexParagon (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are only two sources here. I wonder why this was included in the first place. Seems rather random. Only significantly covered memes are generally included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Kyoushitsu (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. Other language wiki page has no sources that support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radi Ibrahim Nuhu (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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain specific defined inclusion criteria supported by reliable source coverage about them and their work -- that is, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to Amazon or Barnes & Noble as proof that they exist, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to media coverage about them (analytical reviews by professional literary critics, journalist-written news articles about him, verification of winning notable literary awards, etc.) as proof that they garnered independent third-party attention.
But this is referenced entirely to either online bookstores or the subject's own self-published social networking presence, with not a whit of WP:GNG-building reliable source coverage shown at all.
It also warrants note that this has already been move-warred over: it started out in draftspace, then got moved into mainspace by its own creator without an WP:AFC review, then got redraftspaced by an experienced editor on the grounds of being inadequate, before being moved back into mainspace by its creator a second time without significant improvement or review.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Tanzania. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO. No book reviews that I can find, sourcing now is primary and bookstore websites. Very promotional in tone with flowery text used. Nothing we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Promo, promo. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. This is one long blurb, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article is insanely promotional and does not rely on any secondary sources, let alone RSes. This seems to be one of the clearest case of a delete that I have ever seen on here. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions of dominance (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:NOTESSAY. LR.127 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete This is a college paper, complete with introductory arguments and multiple levels of "conclusions". It seems to have been worked over by quite a few people since 2017 and still is a stone-cold essay. Not the type of thing we should be hosting. (Also the mixed referencing style sucks, but that's beside the point.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

does not pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three thus it should be deleted unless new in-depth sources are added that establish both WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 19:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. somewhat obscure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High School Republican National Federation (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 be notable as a standalone article. Coverage is limited to either interviews with individuals connected to the subject (e.g their chairperson) or passing mentions about the subject, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable, secondary coverage about the subject to warrant a article. Article edit history also shows a potential WP:COI. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  I am currently an officer and would like to provide an update. This organization is still active, as we recently held elections and elected full leadership for the next school year. Additionally, we have a valid website listed and are still campaigning for Republican candidates on all levels. CTRU441 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary championships in All Elite 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)

Mostly fancraft content with the relevant parts already at List of current champions in All Elite Wrestling and rest of the championship articles. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BADFORK. Another similar article needs to be reviewed too: Secondary championships in WWE --Mann Mann (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge to List of AEW championships badfork. Why have two separate lists for titles? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per OP. Information largely repeated from other articles. — Czello ^(music) 10:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seniorly.com (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)

An article about a company, twice moved to draft by other editors but then returned to mainspace by the article creator. The given sources are start-up coverage about the firm's aspirations and announcement-based coverage which falls under WP:CORPTRIV. Searches find more pieces by the company co-founder (e.g. [69]) and alumni profiles ([70]) but there does not appear to be sufficient coverage about the company to demonstrate that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - just an advertisement for the company. thus failing PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a promo. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we must discourage spam. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems promotional and like there is only one RS article to support inclusion. Therefore, I think it is prudent to delete it. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple emoji (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 don't see any Sigcov per BEFORE, only the ref #6 source and the weak source like Bustle, thus failing notability. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Could perhaps be a brief mention in an emoji article, but most of what i find is trivia [71] or random mentions online. I don't see enough for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How about the ref #6, isn't it a full article? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: and what is there (including ref 6) can be incorporated into other articles, eg ref 6 is more about the symbolism of pineapples and could be added to the article on pineapple. --hroest 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as major author of the article: Source analysis has not been properly conducted. The comment that Bustle is "weak" is not substantiated by why this would be so. The article is equivalent of around 16 Column inches devoted to this subject alone. There was not any attempt to address dictionary.com which is a solid source, used in hundreds of articles. Even the nom seems to admit that source #6, at Jane Austen Society of North America, is a full article about this subject, and the presence of "emoji" in the article title tells us that it is not about the fruit, but the symbol. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dictionary as a source is not a secondary and would not count to notability. Ref #6 is mixed since it also talked about the pineapple itself, not only the emoji. Bustle is weak when you check that source since the article is mentioning all the fruits, not only pineapple emoji (You really thought because of the headline title). When I checked the body of the article, it only says about pineapple emoji is "especially when you can post a bunch of pineapple emojis to your Snapchat story to get people scratching their heads instead." Yeah, Bustle and ref#6 is not enough, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There's wide academic coverage of the Pineapple emoji use in Jane Austen adaptations [72][73][74][75][76][77]. There's brief coverage about its use as a synonym for weed. I would also support a merge to a section Pineapple#Symbolism if someone was up to write it. --MarioGom (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found something else it is notable for and put it on the page. Specifically, that it is a symbol used by swingers to indicate to other swingers that they are open to that activity. Additionally, there are sources that bolster this use like Cosmopolitan^[1] and The Telegraph.^[2] Therefore, I think at this point it meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and warrants inclusion. I am sure there are other sources that support the swinger notion, I just did a quick look. Apparently that is its most popular usage. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both sources has zero mention about Pineapple emoji. You might did some "quick look", but you didn't checked properly. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Berwal (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. A search for sources largely turned up passing mentions which only note his position as the bodyguard unit commandant, without providing any WP:SIGCOV about him. At most we have this Indian Express piece on the unit in which Berwal provides details on the unit - but again, no sigcov about the person himself. JavaHurricane 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, India, and Delhi. JavaHurricane 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is too early to create an article about him. Agletarang (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raina railway station (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)

Can't find anything about this railway station in Pakistan. I did find an article about a railway station that happens to be called "Raina", but it is located in West Bengal (India), not Pakistan.

And I'm not entirely sure if that article is even reliable.

(Edit: another article about the Indian railway station, still nothing for the Pakistan one though) ApexParagon (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything to satisfy WP:V. Jumpytoo Talk 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The archived Pakistan Railways site at https://web.archive.org/web/20140224124331/http://pakrail.com/ has a list of stations in alphabetical order, and when you scroll down to Raina, you see "Raina (Closed)". Google Maps shows a town or village named Raina in Pakistan. There is no Raina, Pakistan article, but perhaps there is in the Urdu Wikipedia. I don't see a railway line there, though. Perhaps there was a railway line and station there once. Perhaps there is more than one way to transliterate the Urdu name. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not have significant independent coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is there any community consensus that short films cannot be redirected to list articles? According to a discussion at WP:FILM, films can redirect to list articles - are there any list articles that would be appropriate here? I'm not sure if films without articles (let alone short films) can be added to articles like List of American films of 2013 - however at the same time there does not seem to be any requirements on the page as far as inclusion goes. So with that in mind, this could probably be added and redirected to List of American films of 2013. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Nightstream. Non-notable self-promo. hinnk (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Nunn (artist) (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)

Nunn appears to be a successful professional in his field of illustration, but after a fair bit of looking I can't turn up much proper, independent sigcov. None of his three illustrated books pass a strict WP:NBOOK, though the Corbyn Colouring Book got a good number of brief mentions. I found a non-independent interview, but no proper profiles. I don't see WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources are too thin for a pass at notability... He's not listed in the Getty ULAN [78], this was the only hit on the name [79], but it's an unrelated child. I don't see enough reviews/substantial reviews to pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I found - and have added into the article - a couple of sources with more WP:SIGCOV - road.cc (review of the Tour de France book) and BuzzFeed (review of the Jeremy Corbyn colouring book), both of which mention his creation of the Eats, Shoots & Leaves book cover. Taking those into account, and some of the existing sources, I'd say that there's a reasonable argument for notability now. Were the article to be kept, there is probably some copyediting to be done and trimming of less stellar or redundant sources, e.g. Daily Mail, Worldcat; I didn't want to remove sources during AfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Reliable sources for the infomraton presenting in the article. Source assessment table below. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the coverage of the Corbyn Colouring Book qualifies this article's subject under WP:SIGCOV. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-2893742/Insomnia-work-like-dream.html		Per WP:RSP	passing mention	✘ No
http://jamesnunn.co.uk/about/			primary source	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20201029112047/https://road.cc/content/news/208133-colouring-tour-de-france-coming-bookshop-near-you-next-month			churnalism	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20231120180859/https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/the-peoples-flag-needs-colouring-in		Per WP:RSP		✘ No
http://jamesnunn.co.uk/home/?covers			primary source	✘ No
https://search.worldcat.org/title/1127946427?oclcNum=1127946427			WorldCat listing proves the coloring book exists only	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/dec/04/books-best-stocking-fillers-2015			listicle	✘ No
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41293-021-00185-5?fromPaywallRec=false	To build a new Jezrusalem: an historical institutionalist analysis of the origins of the Corbyn era in the Labour party		random article - no mention of James Nunn	✘ No
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/atticus-sorry-lady-grantham-but-you-are-splitting-heirs-pd3xzp3fg33	Atticus: Sorry, Lady Grantham, but you are splitting heirs		passing mention	✘ No
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3298264/Red-pencils-ready-Jeremy-Corbyn-COLOURING-BOOK-goes-sale-left-wing-publishing-enjoys-winter-content.html		Per WP:RSP	promotional review	✘ No
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/secret-gardens-vogue-and-jeremy-corbyn-2015s-best-colouring-book/			listicle	✘ No
https://www.thebookseller.com/rights/yellow-jersey-publish-tour-de-france-colouring-book-405901			publication notice in Bookseller magazine	✘ No
https://www.counterfire.org/article/after-the-eating-and-drinking-the-sporty/	A selection of 2017 sporting reads by Mark Perryman for the post-festive recovery period		listicle	✘ No
https://theartbuyer.co.uk/a-discussion-with-the-artist-james-nunn/			interview in the Art Buyer with link to sales area	✘ 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}}.

• Comment The subject has illustrated many books and book covers. I have so far found 3 reviews of the YA book White Horse by Yan Ge, translated by Nicky Harman, illustrated by James Nunn, all of which mention the illustrations [80], [81], [82]. I will look for more reviews of books he illustrated. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have also found and added more sources, including more reviews of The Jeremy Corbyn Colouring Book and reviews of other books he illustrated. SunloungerFrog has now also found an award for another title. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Currie (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:BAND and WP:GNG in that his notability is related primarily to membership in T Rex. References cited mention him only in passing and primarily in that connection. Should be a redirect to the band article, and lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:13, 22 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) 14:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom the sources in the article only cover currie in regards to his membership in the band or when its about his connection to Marc Bolan Scooby453w (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to T. Rex (band). This article may have been created because other non-Bolan members of T. Rex also have their own articles, but the others have more activities of note outside the band. Currie was a longtime member during the band's most massive success, but I must agree with the nominator and previous voter on how he has little outside of the band with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Untrue to say that the sources are mere mentions in passing - although all four are from Bolan/T.Rex books, they nonetheless substantially record Currie's background and career prior to joining the band. They are not quick one liners by any means. They are adequate (if similar in content to each other) and there are other examples like them e.g. The Official Marc Bolan Story by George Tremlett. (Futura 1975) or Marc Bolan:The Legendary Years by John & Shan Bramley (Gryphon 1997) Romomusicfan (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Source one is one sentence about currie having died due to tragic circumstances source 2 is a book about marc bolan and while it says it also covers the bios of other members currie isnt listed as one of them source 3 is nother book about bolan where currie has a minor mention in it (and isnt even listed in the synopsis while other members are) to sum it all about he quite literally is not mentioned in any source that's not about the band or bolan Scooby453w (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And sources 4&5? Or the above proposed 6&7?

  Granted Sources 2-5 (potentially 2-7 if Tremlett and Bramleys are added on) are all from texts about T.Rex or Bolan but they nonetheless are each of them a substantial passage (from a paragraph to a half page) detailing Currie's background and pre-Bolan career.Romomusicfan (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i might change my vote but Ill admit im still on the fence a little though Scooby453w (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I arrived from the T rex and interesting to find this 2A00:23C8:EA12:6601:7440:9D09:8B46:CF19 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect is fine. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we please get an analysis of Romomusicfan's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scooby453w, @Doomsdayer520, @Glane23, do you find Romomusicfan's argument or sources persuasive? @Bearian, I mean no offense, but I can't tell from your !vote if you actually looked at the sources here – could you please clarify why you think a redirect is fine? Toadspike [Talk] 09:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok by me. No offense taken. Bearian (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded that a separate article is warranted per WP:BAND. I'm still in favour of a redirect absent a biographical profile such as a book focused solely on Currie's work apart from and with T Rex, as everything published that mentions him springs primarily from and about his work with T Rex. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will stick with my vote to redirect. It is true that the cited books have some additional info on Currie's early life, but that info is not particularly notable in its own right and there is not enough significant coverage of his non-T.Rex acitivites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think people can check out some of the sources themselves and make their own decision rather than needing to find my argument persuasive. I do feel it was incorrect to characterise them as "mention him only in passing " - they are more substantial than that. Romomusicfan (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner (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 hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Whenever I see an AfD on a article on an obscure hockey player such as this, I tend to flicker my gaze to the top of the screen to see if Dolovis -- an editor eventually community-banned from new article creation, and responsible for creating thousands of articles on NN subjects, often in direct defiance of notability guidelines -- was the perp. Bingo! In any event, there's never been any iteration of NHOCKEY under which this player, whose career was multiple rungs below top flight, has been considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 12:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Red Deer Advocate gave extensive SIGCOV of him, e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the above links that will open through Wikipedia Library: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Also this story from the Las Vegas Review-Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are four significant article about him provided above. 1 4 5 6. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources seem quite limited and I don't think it passes WP:BASIC. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG with multiple sources of SIGCOV listed above. NSPORT doesn't have any reasonable sport-specific guidance on stuff anymore since WP:NSPORTS2022 so this is all we have to go on. Just following the rules. Can't have it both ways. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer This is due for close or relist today, but I don't see any source review. Could we get a relist to do that properly. My first observation is that 6 of the 7 sources come from the same newspaper, and so these would only count as a single source for purposes of GNG. The links have ot been set up through the Wikipedia library so I will need to do a bit of work to review them, but that is at most one source. The other, the Las Vegas Review, is a report on their return, but is primarily an interview, so the biographical information is not independent, and is primary. I think this needs more work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Source review - Thanks for the relist. I have now looked at the six sources above, and here is my assessment (in conjunction with my earlier comment about the Las Vegas Review source).
  The following are all from the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper for Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. They are mostly from one staff correspondent. One is from an alternate staff correspondent. The page subject is only associated with the Red Deer Rebels. The Red Deer Advocate is owned by Black Press, but coverage of a player on the local team in a local paper is clearly WP:ROUTINE or of questionable independence. To be notable, the player must surely be noticeable beyond the local paper.

• 1 (Meacham, 2001) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
• 2 - Not SIGCOV. N
• 3 (Meacham, 2005) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Additionally information appears to be obtained via interview, and aspects of this are primary reporting. ?
• 4 (Meacham, 2010) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?
• 5 (Rode, 2005) This appears to be a write up of an interview, so the biographical information is not independent. N
• 6 (Meacham, 2003) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. ?

The six sources count together. While some are excluded, there is SIGCOV here in this local paper about the local team. But can they be used for notability? Certainly not on their own. They provide some useable biographical information, but they do not indicate notability. GNG requires multiple sources in any case. If we had national coverage at this level, we would keep, based on the coverage, but as things stand, if this is all we have, we are not yet at GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing in our guidelines suggests that coverage by a "local team in a local newspaper" is of "questionable independence" or necessarily routine. And the Las Vegas article (which is not an interview) is not Red Deer, or even Alberta, or even Canada. So there are multiple sources, and not just national coverage but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very much disagree with the source review above. The Review-Journal is an ~800 word story on him that is not solely an interview. Sirfurboy seems to be stating that any story that has any quotes or such is automatically non-independent, but that is clearly incorrect and including quotes from closely related people is a feature of almost all good sports reporting. Review-Journal is SIGCOV source 1. Then we've got an avalanche of coverage from the Advocate. "Questionable independence"? No, the paper is not owned by the team or anything like that. Being local does not mean non-independent! And there is no requirement that a subject receives national coverage. The Review-Journal has SIGCOV and then the Advocate has SIGCOV. That's multiple sources with SIGCOV, and that meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nearly everything in the Review is indeed from an interview. I missed that 89 words of direct quotation actually come from Glen Gulutzan, his coach, saying:

  Early on he's had some offensive success, but what we can count on him for is the same game every night. That's why he's good for our younger guys. His game doesn't fluctuate every day. It's the same every day.

  "He kills penalties, plays in front of the net on the power play and on 5-on-5 he's defensively responsible. We know every night we can rely on him in tough situations. He's just a well-rounded player, and that's how he has to be to get to the next level.

  Other than that, the only material that is not directly from the subject is that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. This is primarily an interview with a returning player. Where is he returning to? Las Vegas. And this is the Las Vegas Review. What is not interview is news reporting, city wide but local. Again, if we had any national coverage it would be different, but coverage of who is rejoining a local team is routine, match reporting is primary and interview content is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's 260 words of coverage of Neiszner that is not from quotes – that's SIGCOV. There is no requirement that the coverage be non-local. Whether you personally judge it to be "routine" because its of a "returning player" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from it being reliable and independent (which it is), is whether it is in-depth coverage (SIGCOV), which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're discounting "local" coverage and entire sources because they have some quote material (which is standard sports journalism), then there are a decent amount of NHL players that wouldn't even pass GNG. Would an article on a Philadelphia Flyers player in The Philadelphia Inquirer not count since it's "local"? Only All-Star caliber players and those who have played for 10+ years will have national SIGCOV. I'm not going to "die on the hill" (for lack of a better phrase) for this minor leaguer but I would for an NHL player. Here is an example of a Q&A type interview that wouldn't count towards notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Quotes can be valid coverage, especially if they are not from an interview with the subject. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. - see WP:IV. As we want biographical SIGCOV of the player, the quoted information is primary, and cannot be used for SIGCOV. What we can take into account is the question of why the interview happened. Why did a newspaper believe interviewing this subject was important? Does that indicate notability? But that takes us to the occasioning of the sources, and relevant here is that these are coverage of the local team, and this is run of the mill stuff. Look at the 89 words from the coach above: it's just talking about him as a team member. We need something more here. If the subject is notable, someone other than the local paper will have taken note in something other than simple team news reporting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. – correct, which means that the quotes in the article cannot count as coverage of the subject. However, the ~260 words written by the journalist on Neiszner is coverage that counts as SIGCOV. All good sports journalism includes quotes, so you're suggestions that including quotes automatically makes sources primary and unusable would make basically all sports SIGCOV unusable, which is very obviously in error and a ridiculous assertion that I have never before come across in my five years of participation at hundreds of sports AFDs. Once again, whether you personally think this is "local run of the mill stuff" is entirely irrelevant; all that matters is whether there is SIGCOV in reliable sources, which we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I make it 171 words and I already dealt with that above. It tells us that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. The source is primarily an interview in local press about a returning player. It is routine, and the occasion of the source (that he is a returning player) makes that information primary. Biographical information may be secondary, but there is no independent biographical information to speak of. It is almost entirely not independent. And we routinely treat routine local press more cautiously for notability. You are attempting to make this a black and white, any two sources and it's in. That's not what the policy says. What it actually says is this:

  "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.

  Under the accompanying note it adds "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." If we had one national source, I'd accept these take us to multiple sources, but they are simply not enough on their own. Thus, at this stage, my !vote is Delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure how you get 171, but it is ~260. Per GNG, a topic is notable when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It says nothing of "routine local press" being discounted. And I'll add that the Las Vegas Review-Journal is no small-town paper, but a large one, the largest in the state of Nevada. That the source is about a "returning player" is irrelevant; once again, the only thing that matters is if there's SIGCOV. It is not primary, and that there's some quotes in the article does not make it so, for quotes are a feature of all sports journalism. The suggestion that quotes automatically make a source unusable is ridiculous and would result in the deletion of the vast majority of all sports articles. National coverage is not required... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. Could find no significant coverage or sources to establish notability and certainly not to class it as either populous or legally recognised under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Coldupnorth (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - places don't have to be "populous", merely populated, and no-one can actually say what "legally recognised" is supposed to mean outside the US... Ingratis (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it included on Indian census documentation? If so then that's a good sign its recognized to some legal capacity. -Samoht27 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and can you please add the link to the first AfD nomination? Ingratis (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found here, for easy access. Réunion! 22:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you will look carefully, there is a box for previous nominations at the top of every AfD entry, which is where the link should have been and where I have now added it, since the nomr hasn't. Ingratis (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - if SIGCOV does end up being found, I'd support a redirect to Krishnampalle, per Mccapra in the previous nomination. Réunion! 22:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same place as Krishnampalle. Ingratis (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chendathur. There are several places called Krishnampalli / Krishnampalle, and this particular one, as nom states, seems to lack SIGCOV, but there are sources confirming that it's in the village / taluk of Chendathur (refs added there).Ingratis (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blockchain LLC (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)

While company made bold claims at the height of crypto hype and was covered as such, plans fell through. There is no significant coverage of the current focus (gaming reputation). -- Luk ^talk 08:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Nevada. -- Luk ^talk 08:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No go promo. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not going to have a strong opinion here, but I'd like to address the statement that this page is "promo". I found this article requested on either Articles for Creation or Requested Articles or some listing like that, and I like creating pages of companies like that. I in no way shape or form have a connection to this company. If the company has since gone stale and doesn't have much notability, that is one thing. But they did have lots of coverage in the past and had some interesting concepts that would have been notable had they succeeded, primarily the Smart City plan. The conception of such an idea might still be considered notable. Up to the reviewers to decide. Uhtregorn (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Darling (Civil War nurse) (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 could hardly find an independent reliable source confirming that she existed. The primary source for this article is the subject's own account of their service. Otherwise, does not seem to meet GNG. There is coverage in Hall 2006, but it is confined to one page; I can't see what it is. Either way it's not enough for a stand-alone page. Without secondary analysis of Darling, we can't build an article here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Missouri. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep sorry but "I could not see the source" isnt really a good enough reason to delete, there seems to be at least one secondary source on her. --hroest 12:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we would need multiple to establish notability, @Hannes Röst. Even if that book has sigcov, which is not clear, I found no other sources offering more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I was able to access the Hall book — the extent of the coverage is the following text in the "Honor Roll of Civil War Service" on p.233:

  DARLING, Mrs. Mary E. Became a regimental nurse in her husband's Missouri Home Guard unit that was mustered into U.S. service in December 1861. She traveled with the regiment and cared for soldiers in tents and field hospitals and in the division hospital near the Shiloh battleground.

I would not consider that SIGCOV. The citation for that entry in Hall 2006 is also the same primary source published in Darling 2002 that is cited in our article, so there's no indication of additional secondary sources there. I'll come back to this once I've done a proper search for other sources, but I agree that I don't see a GNG pass based on the current two sources. MCE89 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had a look for additional sources and came up with nothing. Even if we were to be extremely generous and considered the two sentences in Hall to be SIGCOV, I don't see any sign of a second GNG-qualifying source. MCE89 (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can find no coverage that indicates that Mary Darling was any more notable than the tens of thousands of other women who had similar roles during the war. The article has also been claiming since creation that she was a Confederate nurse; both the article content and the qutoe from the Hall book make it clear that she was a nurse for a Union unit. I suspect this is probably from a confusion between the Union Missouri Home Guard and the Confederate Missouri State Guard. Hog Farm _Talk 01:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lobenthal (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 art historian/author. WP:ROTM 'cultural' critic. No RS establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Coldupnorth (talk) 09:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see evidence for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. per nomination, none of the sources indicates notability. --hroest 15:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Harrison-Jones (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 New Zealand rugby player. Subject plays below provincial level. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORT. Cabrils (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The statement in the nomination that subject plays below provincial level is incorrect: Tasman Mako play in the highest division of the National Provincial Championship. Paora (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The most coverage I found was a few sentences here. Please ping me if more is uncovered. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Cheever (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)

Hi there. I came across this article via Special:Random and am quite alarmed by the fact it has (almost) no references. At first, I presumed it was just because of poor referencing and a classic case of deletion is not cleanup, but after scouring the internet I cannot find any significant coverage of him anywhere; all sources are either about his brother Eddie Cheever (who is reasonably notable), or are just entries in various racing driver sites (which is what the two refs are). I accidentally proposed deletion rather than sending to AfD so I'll fix that in a second. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC) JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Finding online SIGCOV of late 80s/early 90s drivers is often very difficult – this article needs more references – but as a multi race winner and title contender in Japanese F3000 (the pinnacle of single-seater racing in Asia, quite lucrative at the time) Ross' own notability shouldn't be in question. MSport1005 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per MSport1005's rationale. Finding web articles pre-early 2000s about motorsport, especially Japanese F3000 is really hard but to say that all sources are either entries or about his brother Eddie is a complete lie. [96], [97] are just two examples of sources I found, but I'd also argue that a 2-time grand prix winner and a Japanese F3 champion shouldn't even be nominated for deletion. [98],[99], [100].

Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 11:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Many hits in Gnewspapers, this one [101][ talks about him. Was mentioned in an accident, coverage in Brazil [102], [103]. Mentioned in a retrospective here [104], showing lasting notabilty. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Competed in some of the highest levels of racing -Drdisque (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per sources presented above. Svartner (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sufficient coverage has been found to meet at least SPORTBASIC and it can be very reasonably assumed that more exists due to his achievements. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Ambati (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:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be kept as Arjun Ambati is a notable figure in the Telugu film industry. He has a significant filmography, with key roles in well-known projects, and his work has been covered by various media outlets. Additionally, he has a Google Knowledge Panel, which is an indicator of recognition and notability in the public domain.

I am working on adding more reliable sources, including interviews and articles from established media, to strengthen the article. His contributions to the industry further demonstrate his standing and relevance.

Thank you for considering my input. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Google knowledge panel does not mean anything in terms of notability at Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – there is no coverage at all of him in independent sources, much less any significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. I would like to gently highlight that Arjun Ambati has been covered by independent and reliable sources such as The Times of India, Eenadu, Sakshi, and Andhra Jyothy. His work in Telugu television and cinema has also been featured on platforms like Gemini TV and Telugu Filmnagar. While I understand that a Google Knowledge Panel alone doesn't establish notability, it does suggest public interest and recognition. I’m continuing to improve the article by adding more reliable sources.

  Thanks again for your time and consideration. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Despite his modest role, it is evident that he has participated in numerous films, television series, and reality shows. However, there is an absence of significant coverage. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk)

Arnaud Honoré (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)

Can't find WP:GNG-passing coverage. Doesn't seem to have played in any top league in France, made four appearances in Cypriot First Division so look maybe more into Cypriot sources if I missed something. Notable to say I made this article myself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of foreign football players in Cypriot First Division#France, where his name is mentioned, or Delete per nomination if no significant coverage is found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Don't think redirect is appropriate given he played for multiple teams. GiantSnowman 18:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 West Portal, San Francisco car accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of lasting notability, a sad event but all too common. Fram (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and California. Fram (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Extensive search for this event yielded no notability about the subjects or the events beyond local coverage. Likely meets WP:NOTNEWS and with no further development, perhaps unsuitable for mainspace. Komodo (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dude, it's a VERY serious accident and incident that most in the BAY AREA, a region of 8 million, are aware of. It is changing how people view driving and speeding and infrastructure in general for cars. 2601:640:8C00:1C40:11F6:9598:94FC:8DFA (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coverage is not sustained or in depth. Also very local. That it happened in the Bay Area does not make it more notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t just local. Sure it was mostly big news in San Francisco Bay Area within the US but it also had a lot of attention in both Brazil and Portugal, as they were from there. So I say it has a good amount of notability, in a horrific way, but still let us keep the victims remembered and awareness directed towards such an awful issue (erratic and reckless driving). Albanianrapper (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - tragic news, but one of thousands of fatal crashes annually in the United States. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, not many are that bad. 2601:640:8C00:1C40:8509:F173:B448:D2B4 (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD due to having incoming links. However, there is no evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor party, fails WP:GNG. Jdcooper (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wow, what will they think of next! But they will probably last 7 weeks. Not notable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this party received a rounding error of votes in one election. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Dubinsky (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 fairly clear WP:BIO1E, I could hardly find any information on her. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: As mentioned by nominator, there's not much to note about the individual other than her defection with little post-return coverage. Even "The Defector Study" contains little information. Looking at the template on the page about defectors, it appears that this criteria may apply to other pages too, for example, Harold M. Koch, contributing to my weak assessment that perhaps the series or list of defections (even if one time event) may meet notability threshold in some context. Komodo (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom, also the source provided for this article jfk-assassination.net does not seem very reputable. --hroest 12:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is based on her supposed FBI file and the mention in the study that merely reiterates information from that file. I cannot find any other sources on her, other than mere mentions in lists of defectors. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and no real claim to notability. There is no useful redirect target as an alternative. Schazjmd (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a BLP nightmare. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Baer (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 businessperson that fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Livejournal and vocal.media are self-published sources, cannot be used to demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find any others during a WP:BEFORE. Honestly based on the bio the subject seems like a standard realtor, I don't see any reason to expect he would be notable. Zzz plant (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a sales guy. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one of over a million Realtors. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KCAY (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)

Rarely would I AfD such a recently created article, but this article should be a textbook case for editors returning to the radio stations field that haven't been around it in five or so years.

Once upon a time, the mere fact that a station had a broadcast license was enough in the eyes of observers to guarantee notability. As recently as 2019 or so, new-on-air stations like KCAY would have been eligible for an article as soon as they began broadcasting or sometimes before that. It is true that, historically, licensed radio stations often generated coverage significant to translate into notability, a correlation that was much stronger in the early years of this encyclopedia and held for many U.S. stations that originated their own programming at some point. But that has broken once and for all:

• In the wake of the 2021 RfC on media notability, the general notability guideline (GNG) became the yardstick for measuring the notability of broadcast stations. Not all of them have been able to measure up.
• Significant coverage of radio has substantially decreased in the last 10 to 15 years. The reasons for this are the decline in local print journalism and the continued decline (in relative value) of radio as a mass medium and of local media covering the local media. New stations in this period, such as KCAY (which began broadcasting within the last two weeks), struggle to gain sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. It is worth noting that in the context of "significant coverage", routine announcements and FCC documentation (such as are currently referenced on the page, which was part of how it returned to article space) do not count. Even some RadioInsight articles do not qualify for purposes of ascertaining notability.
  • Not relevant to the instant case, but some countries have less reliable sourcing to work with, which unfortunately leads to this being even worse a factor in countries like the Philippines, where I have had to plead with editors to bring better sources to the table.

We have had a revolution in our field that existence is not notability. If I go to the area near St. George, Utah, I could listen to KCAY on my radio. That does not, however, mean it is notable and worthy of a standalone article. A redirect to List of radio stations in Utah is merited, but nothing more. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Utah. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sammi, I have added quite a bit of information about the historical value of KCAY, including its inclusion in a FCC decision that was without precedent. I have also added broadcast site information that identifies KCAY as being located at a former microwave communications TD-2 location and information about a failed sale of the station. There is quite a bit of history associated with KCAY, especially as it relates to the FCC decisions, in my opinion. Matevian (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of radio stations in Utah I share Sammi's concerns throughout this article; we've long known that for Utah media, and especially the St. George market, there is absolutely no way this station is designed to forever serve that community (their original COL was Caliente, Nevada before the bump to Enterprise, Utah to get into St. George; Nevada is known for very absurd COL moves, including what is now WJLP in New York originating in Ely); they're going to do all they can to force themselves into Salt Lake City, and certainly not with this generic oldies format, and this is just transmitter move no. 1 in a long process to get it near the Great Salt Lake. Right now this is a station you can listen to, nothing more than that, with no established history or even an air staff.

The thing that sticks out to me most though is the creator of the article, Matevian (talk · contribs), had only three edits last decade, and has suddenly returned to create this article, along with WYAB, an article they exhibit ownership over, including the promotion of one of their host's congressional campaigns (and with all of their images uploaded including station logos, as 'own work', possibly including their own picture), so there is definitely a WP:COI in play here, along with possible paid editing. They also continue to push Radio Locator links into their articles, which have long been depreciated. I suspect the IP that has done most of the editing on WYAB is also Matevian, though that cannot be confirmed outside a checkuser and I wouldn't ask for that for an AfD involving a completely different article. So those concerns more than outweigh the issue that this station is non-notable, but also involves a personal conflict of interest due to Matevian's very obvious lack of editing activity outside a few articles they have selected on their own. Nathannah • 📮 14:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm, the LMS system does show someone as KCAY's representative, based at WYAB's studio in Flora, MS, with a WYAB contact address, and a partial match to the above user name (per WP:OUTING no other details will be disclosed here). Nathannah • 📮 15:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the above, the license establishment process is usually a complex but compulsory process where decisions can be made and still undone, and the average reader is hardly concerned about that process at all; most of the time the technical and regulatory details are minimized in an article because that is of no use to the listener at all. Whatever the regulatory issues are with the license have been (a grant reversal because of changes to another licensee, along with "Delete, Delete, Delete" changing the process) aren't of concern usually; the programming, notability and service to the community is usually what clinches WP:N, and a station in a market known to have applicants always trying to move towards another city is usually of little note unless they are on the air and established for a number of years with local service and programming, not just launching operations with a completely automated network or service from elsewhere. Nathannah • 📮 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathannah, I respectfully believe that the FCC's reversal of a Final Order application grant has significant precedential and historical value. It had not happened in the context of a full power broadcast radio facility until the KCAY decision. The FCC had determined that its KCAY application approval was in error by read of the Order, but the application was not contested in any other way. The FCC does not (generally) review any decision on its own motion, as was the case with KCAY, especially not one that has attained Final Order status. The FCC order on KCAY will almost certainly be cited in future broadcast applications, as it calls into question the FCC's until then well-understood definition of a Final Order grant. Even if not of interest to the radio station's listeners, the KCAY case is certainly of historical notoriety in communications law. Matevian (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Syrian regions (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)

Although these do not automatically merit deletion, the article contains huge chunks of unsourced content and info not supported by the cited reference, which I will get to the details later. More importantly, the major problem with this article is that the concept is a WP:SYNTH. As far as I can see, none of the sources mention or delineate this specific "region". "Northern Syrian regions" is not a phrase precedented in reliable sources that specifically refers to these areas of Turkey. "Northern Syria", even within the context of Ottoman history, refers to a far broader region that contains much of modern Syria or Ottoman Syria, including Aleppo. I initially thought at best, this article could be moved to "Turkish Syria", which is mostly found in over a century-old sources but still also refers to Aleppo: [105] The idea I get from this article is that it describes the areas that would be under the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon according to the Treaty of Sèvres, which did not come into full effect. If this were the case, that would be a content fork, too. Now, returning to WP:VERIFY issues, the list of failed verifications is long, but here are a couple of examples: Nowhere does a traveler mention in 1910 here Mardin Province is (or would be) ...% Arab in 1927 or in any year. Nowhere in Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab does Leslie P. Peirce mention the 1927, or say 1550, composition of the city of Aintab. Cited references include WP:SELFPUBLISHED maps such as this which ironically also fails verification. As of this revision, about 15-18 paragraphs do not include a single reference, not that the references necessarily support the content. Overall, assuming this weren't a content fork, it would have to be moved to a verifiable name that at least was utilized by 2-3 sources. Then, a complete cleanup would have to be done, and each bit would have to be verified with the cited reference. The insurmountable amount of issues crosses the region of WP:TNT, which is only assuming there is a way to solve the issues of WP:N, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and WP:SYNTH. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. There is no coherent underlying subject and too many problems to fix and redistribute the content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it possible to move it to the draftspace where I can learn more on wikipedia's style and fix it? DaSeashell (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It has been longer than 7 months since this article's creation. Per WP:DRAFTNO and previous RFC, articles older than 3 months should not be draftified without clear consensus. It is highly unlikely this entry would be improved after draftification, because the issue is not just the lack of references, but the concept itself is a synthesis of numerous sources and is not something that is covered in-depth and described clearly by any of the sources here or elsewhere on the Internet. You are welcome to experiment through your sandbox, in this case, for your prospective well-sourced additions with reliable sources to other articles. On the other hand, this entry is simply untenable. Wikipedia is not some blog site, where you can coin and synthesize new terms and info. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 30 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 05:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Guha (anthropologist) (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 article is filled with Self published links, Nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and West Bengal. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep then Protect - I consider that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - in the Selected publications section, the references are to reviews of his books. It is certainly true that the article is frequently subject to less well sourced additions from IP editors - who probably have a conflict of interest - which are reverted from time to time. I won't revert them during this AfD (and some of the additions may merit a place in Selected publications) but will once it's finished. If the article is kept, I suggest that it be placed under extended confirmed protection to help prevent these kind of additions from happening. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog, Let's talk about the references. Please provide significant coverage about the subject. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your suggestion. 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obvious because this is a biographical article.But these links can be verified whether they are genuine or not. See for example this biographical article https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Stasi&lang=en&q=Kewal_Krishan_(forensic_anthropologist)#cite_note-4

What's wrong in it? The point is whether the papers are genuine or not. 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments from the other editor, if you have not seen it already.

Keep then Protect - I consider that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - in the Selected publications section, the references are to reviews of his books. It is certainly true that the article is frequently subject to less well sourced additions from IP editors - who probably have a conflict of interest - which are reverted from time to time. I won't revert them during this AfD (and some of the additions may merit a place in Selected publications) but will once it's finished. If the article is kept, I suggest that it be placed under extended confirmed protection to help prevent these kind of additions from happening. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC) 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please come forward after log-in your account then provide your factual statement. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have seen my reply, then please respond. I have already come forward. Whether I log in or not is not the point. I have already made my factual points. Please verify my references whether they genuine or not. 2405:201:900A:D036:2D6A:286B:ECCB:16FD (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obvious because this is a biographical article.But these links can be verified whether they are genuine or not. See for example this biographical article

What's wrong in it? The point is whether the papers are genuine or not. 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have seen my reply, then please respond. I have already come forward. Whether I log in or not is not the point. I have already made my factual points. Please verify my references whether they genuine or not.

What's wrong in it? The point is whether the papers are genuine or not. 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dakbungalow (talk) 20:14, 10 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 05:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3. Looking only at the books in the "selected publications" section, there are reviews of Land, Law, and the Left: The Saga of Disempowerment of the Peasantry in the Era of Globalization in the journal International Sociology [106] and in The Statesman [107]; reviews of Tarak Chandra Das: The Unsung Hero of Indian Anthropology in The Eastern Anthropologist and Anthropological Forum [108]; reviews of Nation-building in Indian Anthropology: Beyond the Colonial Encounter in South Asian Anthropologist, Antrocom Journal of Anthropology and Man in India [109]; and reviews of Encountering Land Grab: An Ethnographic Journey in Indian Anthropologist and the Journal of the Indian Anthropological Society (many of which are already cited in the article). MCE89 (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the above references provided by MCE89 are self published. We need in-depth coverage in reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If you have such citations please provide, i would be more happy to withdrawn my nomination. Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? They’re clearly not self-published. All of the sources I linked above are book reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals (and one in a newspaper). Which is exactly what is required to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Can you explain what you mean by these sources being self-published? MCE89 (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above analysis. Andre🚐 03:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Bakhtar40, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at. To add to MCE89's comment, and to expand on my keep rationale, I do not think that the subject can be considered notable under WP:GNG, for which at least three decent sources are necessary, as you say. However, I do think that the subject can be considered notable under the subject-specific notability guidelines for authors, which says Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.... In this case, the four books in Selected publications are the significant...body of work, and the references against each are the independent peridiodical articles or reviews; MCE89 has also provided some additional reviews. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funmilola Ogundana (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 much of any coverage for this Nigerian former sprinter, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. For what it's worth, it looks like she would've met the now-deprecated WP:NTRACK (probably the reason for its creation), albeit via a team relay race and not as an individual. IMO, it would be hard to scrape by even on WP:BASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Nigeria. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps she went by a nickname...? JTtheOG (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Funmi, perhaps. I would probably not have created this article today, although I do see something that's not in the article: she won a gold medal (again in the relay) at the 1998 African Championships in Athletics. Geschichte (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that's enough for a keep based on WP:ATHLETE, not voting yet. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, subject was covered in numerous African media, 10 articles listed here: [110] Per Athletics Podium source, her nickname was indeed "Funmi" Ogundana.

Most of the articles require a subscription to view, and sadly most of the news websites that AllAfrica.com aggregates are either defunct or are no longer hosting their 2000s articles. I'm still trying to find the article announcing her death due to childbirth in 2013, which is currently unsourced but I can see that she did die around that time via Facebook posts (1 2), so I know that it must have been covered. Even still, the 10 articles we have are enough to justify a keep vote. --Habst (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Considering the sources of sports results and death, I imagine there is a minimum for WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The stats I am seeing from https://athleticspodium.com/athlete/27412/funmilola-ogundana with 3 gold, 3 silver and 1 bronze, is a sufficient WP:NATH pass, although, sources are definitely scarce. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Franc (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 references used don't establish notability, and WP:BEFORE turned up nothing better. JSFarman (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability under something like WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL. The best cite appears to be the Forbes article which quotes him but also relates to a personal matter about him and his son, but even if that's significant coverage of him (which I doubt) it's just one article. The rest are mostly profiles which shouldn't be counted as they tend to be self-provided.. Oblivy (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Law, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Frankly speaking, not notable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - he has some accomplishments, but the sourcing is poor. Willing to change my mind if shown more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Sportivo Giacinto Facchetti (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)

Without independent secondary sources or WP:SIGCOV, this Italian training ground fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Inter Milan Youth Sector as possible search term. GiantSnowman 19:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I can say that most people in Milan have no idea this place exists. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not true. Interello is very well known. In 2006 it was named in honour of Giacinto Facchetti, a legend of the Grande Inter.--Dipralb (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. as above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The centre is used for the matches and training for that of the Inter Milan youth sector and that of the women's team. It is no different from Juventus Training Center in Vinovo.--Dipralb (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital (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)

Similar to the case of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital, this hospital also appears to fail WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is no way a 95-year-old, 880-bed hospital affiliated to (possibly) the best medical university in China is not notable. I'm not going to do a proper source search just this moment, but I will provide references for my claims: [111][112]. Toadspike [Talk] 00:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.This hospital is classified as a Grade A Tertiary Hospital, which means it is one of the highest-level hospitals officially accredited by the Chinese government. It is a non-profit public institution, not commercially operated, and treats tens of thousands of patients annually. Frankly speaking, one reason I focus on writing entries about large public hospitals is to help prevent misleading commercial promotion by smaller private hospitals. The references cited are based on the most authoritative and professional data sources available regarding local healthcare conditions. Has the proposer fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing this content seriously? Have they conducted any academic searches or reviewed relevant literature? I was able to retrieve numerous academic papers through Google Scholar. Or is the proposer simply speculating based on personal unfamiliarity? Such an attitude is neither friendly nor consistent with the rigor and responsibility that this task requires.--Amazingloong (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital (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)

While some sources exist (e.g. [113]), they are not independent secondary sources or otherwise not WP:SIGCOV, and this hospital then fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is as known as The First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.In the field of medical academia, research related to this hospital is widely available. Moreover, when searching in its native language, Chinese, even more information can be found. This hospital is a Class A tertiary hospital, the highest tier of public hospitals in China.[114][115][116] Amazingloong (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Medicine, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per "this is a huge f***ing hospital", a guideline we really ought to have. They also seem to have a popular bakery [117][118] and bad parking [119]. Oh, and it's actually two hospitals, not just one. By the way, has anyone checked the offline sources cited in the article? Toadspike [Talk] 23:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.This hospital is classified as a Grade A Tertiary Hospital, which means it is one of the highest-level hospitals officially accredited by the Chinese government. It is a non-profit public institution, not commercially operated, and treats tens of thousands of patients annually. Frankly speaking, one reason I focus on writing entries about large public hospitals is to help prevent misleading commercial promotion by smaller private hospitals. The references cited are based on the most authoritative and professional data sources available regarding local healthcare conditions.Has the proposer fulfilled their responsibility in reviewing this content seriously? Have they conducted any academic searches or reviewed relevant literature? I was able to retrieve numerous academic papers through Google Scholar. Or is the proposer simply speculating based on personal unfamiliarity? Such an attitude is neither friendly nor consistent with the rigor and responsibility that this task requires.--Amazingloong (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Jelaca (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 hairstylist. Promotional page (including WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOT), by suspicious account, almost certainly paid, including suspicious image. The [one reference] that might be reliable still does not really include substantive commentary about the subject that establishes notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. and give it a haircut. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - briefly appeared in two reality shows. So did my co-worker's cousin. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101 (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:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Spain. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:News article. Not a WP:CASESTUDY or otherwise subject to any secondary coverage that indicates long-term significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner § Accidents and incidents: This article lacks reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and its WP:LASTING effects are also bare bones. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of secondary sources online. Per WP:NEXISTS, it does not matter if they are not used in the article. MarioGom (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There was extensive contemporary coverage in reliable sources back in the day (2001), virtually on every Spanish newspaper. There was a newspaper piece on it published in 2013, so there was sustained coverage [120]. MarioGom (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’d lean towards keeping but are there more post-2001 sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not many. There's follow up news about the investigation in 2004 [121], and passing mentions in articles about similar incident in 2014 [122][123], but these last 2 are not that relevant. MarioGom (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Blast (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)

Doesn't seem like a notable video game. Despite apparently being a big success, it has only gotten trivial mentions in reliable sources, besides the Pocket Gamer article that feels like a press release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Pocket Gamer is a RS per Project Video Games here, so we have this [124] and [125]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GNG says that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is also a RS, with a review [126], any of the sources listed here would be ok [127]. Common Sense media has also reviewed the game [128]. Another RS Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, that's a bit better. I still won't withdraw the nomination, as it only has 2 reviews. Usually the threshold is a few of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Oaktree I believe the sources makes this article barely survive deletion Scooby453w (talk)
• There are sources posted on the talk page, WP:CSM and Gamezebo which is WP:VGRS.

That being said... the second line is copied from the Pocket Gamer source with minimal changes, and the Gameplay section is copied without attribution from Fandom. The article needs a complete rewrite. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Blast does not seem like a WP:RS. So yeah, that's 2 reviews from reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Peak Games, its developer. One of those match-3 games that has heavy prime time/daytime television advertisements obscuring what the object of the game actually is to draw people in (it isn't blasting toons or having fun with them, it's grinding match-3 levels with some bare continuity involving toon characters). Nathannah • 📮 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- not in a developed state, but found these three sources: (https://www.criticalblast.com/articles/2021/07/31/toon-blast-honest-review, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/app-reviews/toon-blast, https://www.gamezebo.com/reviews/toon-blast-review-saving-parents-one-game-at-a-time/) when reviewing it, and I think it's notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Critical Blast does not seem like a reliable website at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense and two Gamezebo articles should be enough for GNG. This isn't Call of Duty, we have critical discussion in two publications, instead of three. I don't think we need to be so hung up on the number of reviews. This is more than we find for other mobile games that pop up here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed here in a French newspaper. [129] and this is listed as a RS at Project Video Games [130]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources provided by oaktree have convinced me im not longer having my vote as "weak" keep Scooby453w (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Reviews by Gamezebo and Common Sense, and the article by PocketGamer are enough for GNG. Additional sources that I found: Softonic review (not necessarily a reliable source per WP:VG/RS) and the game is mentioned several times in this academic book published by Springer Nature: [131] (not necessarily significant coverage). --Mika1h (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Peak Games. In my opinion, the coverage provided does not demonstrate standalone notability. Video game news is so niche and scarce that sometimes smaller outlets will cover any game so long as someone pays them. Two outlets reviewed the game, so what? This article's existence is basically a free advertisement for the company, for a game that doesn't have any unique mechanics or gameplay – another run-of-the-mill, free-to-play mobile game ripping off Candy Crush. Yue🌙 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TVMSL (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 has remained unsourced for 15+ years, and I can't find any source that mentions or covers this project. Even the article on Alcatel does not mention this at all. If it exists and isn't a hoax, it's still clearly not notable (or verifiable) enough for an article.

Update: Sources found in DVB-SH#Project_organization. However, most of these sources are primary sources from Alcatel's website, and this still doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. ApexParagon (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia (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 academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Caroline Boudreaux (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've nominated this individual's nonprofit organization for AfD as well, however I think that the subject of this article itself is not notable either. I've searched the subject up - and it seems that a majority of the sources available are interviews (primary sources) or instances of WP:BLP1E (for their work with the Miracle Foundation, the nonprofit they started). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4. Other profiles that I'm not as sure about: [134], [135]. These all offer significant coverage in reliable sources. A career is not one event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the sources tell the same "origin story" so we are lacking enough beyond that to for this to be about her. I understand why NOM is calling this blp1e, although I don't think that's quite correct. It's as if the article for Zuckerberg only had sources that talked about the invention of FB in his college dorm, and nothing after that. The potentially significant UBS source fails - the link is to a general page and I find nothing under her name. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with WP:BLP1E, and it seems that Caroline Boudreaux meets WP:NBASIC. What guideline are you referring to when you say the sources tell the same origin story? Hmr (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NBASIC asks for "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" ... I read that as saying that if they all have the same content, they are not intellectually independent. Also, none that I can find give much basic biographical information, nor information that covers the years that follow the founding of the organization (except two talks that aren't usable sources). I don't see that there is enough info for a stand-alone article. It may be possible to cover her in the article on the organization, if it meets basic. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as sources provided by Eddie891 give WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable sources from different years (2007, 2015-16). They provide biographical details about the subject as well as information of the founding of the Miracle Foundation as well as details of how she advocates for orphans internationally. Nnev66 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator and Lamona. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Lamona as all the sources tell the same origin story but little else. That happened in 2000, so there should have been other coverage over the past 25 years. This source shouldn't even be in the article now, as it is mislabeled (it is written by subject, not by someone else) and it is a Forbes contributor site which is not considered WP:RS. All but one of the sources listed by Eddie891 are profiles which are insufficient to establish WP:GNG.--FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate how profiles ‘are insufficient to establish GNG’? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eddie891, in my opinion those profiles are puff pieces and hardly good examples of in-depth journalism. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree the coverage of the subject is from a human interest vantage and there are flourishes in the language (i.e. not Woodward and Bernstein journalism), I don't see why these articles are "puff pieces" that don't count towards WP:BASIC. Also, where does it say in Wikipedia policy that coverage in city newspapers where the subject lives doesn't count towards notability? There is quite a bit of information in these articles about the subject herself as well as her organization that evolves over time. There is also coverage that lists the subject's awards in Dataquest, 2019 and Decclan Chronicle, 2018, which include the UBS Global Visionary award and United Nations Humanitarian Award which the subject received in 2017. PS. I removed the Forbes ref from the article as it didn't add anything. Nnev66 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the gist of what Nnev is saying here- these clearly profiles in well-regarded, prominent newspapers over a range of years (exactly what we look for when establishing notability), and from them it would totally be possible to write a substantive article (if not the longest OOT). not too much else matters. I don't think it fair to dismiss them out of hand as puffery, even if they aren't the best possible. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To illustrate what I (above) called "the same story" I ran 3 of the online, textual articles through a plagiarism program. I'm not saying there was plagiarism going on, but such a program detects when the exact same sentence or paragraph is found in multiple sources online. The three came out as 37%, 41% and 48% "alike" with rather large chunks being identical. I assume that we need at least 2 sources with mostly unique content, and I'm not seeing that. I also note that someone has added a youtube video of a ted talk to the article. This is not an independent source. I will move it to the "external links" area. (Giving a TEDx talk is not itself notable - TEDx is described as "TEDx events, which are "essentially, do-it-yourself TED conferences"). I also think that we would get closer to reliability if we can find listing for the awards. I will research that. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm guessing you didn't run through the Austin American-Statesman references from 2007 and 2010 as linked from newspapers.com. These differ more significantly from the CS Monitor, People, and other references from around 2015. Also, I had looked for links to the UBS Global Visionary and United Nations web sites for direct confirmation of awards but their web sites unfortunately don't seem to keep an archive of past awardees. Nnev66 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case one should consider winnowing down the ones that read like copies and getting the majority of the article from the ones that appear to have more journalistic merit. Lamona (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My concern with the Austin American-Statesman articles is that Austin, Texas is her hometown and is or was her residence. Coverage, 18 years ago, in her hometown newspaper, doesn't help much for establishing WP:GNG.--FeralOink (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The UN does have a humanitarian award, but Boudreaux is not listed on the UN news site where others are listed. Of course, the UN web site could be lacking - the online entries may not cover the year she was awarded. I searched on her last name. For the "Hope award" - this one is tricky because the only award with that name addresses cancer research. I found the Robert F. Kennedy Ripple of Hope Award but again I don't find her listed. So the awards remain a mystery. Perhaps others will have better results. Lamona (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am leaning towards K*eep for this person, however redirecting or merging it into Miracle Foundation would be an excellent alternative to deletion. I understand that that article has also been nominated for deletion, however it seems quite clear it's notable per GNG and NCORP per these fully independent, secondary reliable sources found in Newspapers.com (access required) that provide significant coverage over a period of years (over ten years of coverage!): [136], [137], [138], [139], [140], [141], [142], and more. I've added my !vote to the other article, waiting for now on !voting here. BTW, WP:BLP1E does not seem to apply here because there is sustained coverage of both Ms. Boudreaux and the foundation for many years. I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts on redirecting/merging if the article on the foundation is kept. Netherzone (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be fine to merge if kept, since the foundation is the only notable thing she has done. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ditto. Her bio and her role should fit nicely into the article on the organization. That said, if the organization is not found to be notable, it would be difficult to find the founder notable if there aren't other projects she was responsible for.

  Lamona (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Miracle Foundation is the only organization or project for which she is known.--FeralOink (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I noted on the Miracle Foundation AfD that I'm OK with merging the founder into the foundation article. Actually, I've shifted to thinking that would make the most sense - originally my first choice was to keep both articles. I've summarized the best Miracle Foundation sources in reply to Lamona's comment about WP:WHYN and WP:SUSTAINED in that AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All the discussion on the Miracle Foundation AfD and Lamona's nice table there point me back to supporting this page. I think the main issue is that Boudreaux and Miracle Foundation are intertwined in most of the references, but there are now seven references in the this article from independent reliable secondary sources (six if you only count Austin Statesman once), each of which contributes to the article that I've now updated. In total these provide significant coverage. While Boudreaux is only notable for the Miracle Foundation, it has evolved over time, as has the coverage of Boudreaux, thus I don't think this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Nnev66 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete changing from R*direct does not meet notability criteria, and no viable target for a redirect. and merge content to Miracle Foundation, as the sourcing is not really so much about her, but about her role in the Miracle Foundation, which, as stated above by other editors, is the only notable thing she has done. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First, I agree with what Drmies said about these particular profiles not being examples of journalism; they are lightweight human interest stories. Next, I noticed (and removed) another source in the article, see talk page section. Author-published book from defunct CreateSpace ("they would publish anything" per Wiki), no page number(s) given. Also, be aware that the Miracle Foundation article is not in good shape. It needs a lot of editing due to really bad writing (sentence fragments, etc.) and was tagged accordingly in the past. And it was mostly written by a COI editor.--FeralOink (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Båntjern (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 is an article about a mountain lake in Norway -- fails notability guidelines, by virtue of being a random lake in Norway. There are 300,000 lakes in Norway. Besides that, most of the article fails WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:NOTGUIDE; it talks about the amenities of the lake, like hikes, grills, and a nearby campsite. Serious NPOV issues, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Needless to say no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Norway. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it's not a "mountain lake" at all, it's located on the city outskirts and used as a hiking spot/campgrounds. "Needless to say" doesn't seem to hold water (!), why would that be needless to say? Where did you do your WP:BEFORE that is not Google? Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Needless to say was poor semantics, I apologize. I did my WP:BEFORE on JSTOR, Gbooks, GScholar, and norwegian google. I said it was a "mountain lake" because the article classifies it as a "tarn," which is a mountain lake. There some things, like "woah guys this lake exists," but imo it still fails under WP:NOTGUIDE-- I could be wrong, and if so, please let me know w/sources etc. This article is also an orphaned article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NPLACE and WP:NOTPROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle (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)

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Science, Technology, Spaceflight, and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I said in the afd for Marie-Rose Tessier I can't take your argument seriously when you admit you think the sources are reliable in your original rationale also just because it is not complete doesnt mean it isn't ready for an article especially since as you have already admitted there are sources that cover it and how can it be promotional if the sources are reliable? Scooby453w (talk)

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [143], [144], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. A merge into Australian Space Agency would retain this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.

I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sidhi bus accident (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)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Looking for coverage beyond initial reports only turned up unrelated accidents. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Madhya Pradesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Agree with nom. Just routine news coverage - WP:NOTNEWS Asteramellus (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: ROTM news story, fails WP:NEVENT. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 22:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I find myself agreeing with the above considering the weak coverage. Try finding new articles if you want to reinforce your position, potentially in other languages. Bgrus22 (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 51+ people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input regarding SYSTEMIC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SYSTEMIC, see for instance Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Sadly, attacks claiming lives are very common in this region, which is one of the reasons that most of them don't have their own articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Highnesses (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:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [145] [146] [147] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Europe, and Armenia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Armenia, where I've just added an entry for the airline as it was not previously there. I'll note the article makes me raise an eyebrow as it says, and has a table stating, that the airline operated one Il-76 - but the article also has a photograph of an An-12 in the airline's markings. Hmmmm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a search conducted in Armenian revealed several sources demonstrating WP:N. The article can be expanded/improved. Archives908 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you link those sources? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per above request, see [148], [149], [150]. A simple search yielded 22,500 results on Google. Just a matter of sifting through them to see if any more RS can be used. Will maintain my vote as keep and improve. Archives908 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedridden (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 was flagged since 2007, although the citations template was removed without improvement [151]. There is only one source on the page and that is just a reference to playing a song on a radio show. Searches show almost nothing. I found a reference to a saying attributed to them (wrongly), and some primary sourcing but I cannot find any independent reliable secondary sourced coverage of this non notable band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The band has this good coverage and this article mentions a Rock 'n' Roll City: Adelaide Babylon, which promises to elaborate on The Bedridden, but I don't have access to the book to confirm. It feels like a weak delete, but it still needs another good sources to keep the article. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article, although about band leader Baterz, mentions The Bedridden:

https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976

It is Baterz' obituary, published in dB Magazine, an Adelaide based reputable street press (https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2803467) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And another Baterz' obituary article from The Canberra Times mentions The Bedridden:

https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976/text24895

Both these obituaries, although not the original copies from the original publications, have been collected by the Australian National University's Obituary Australia (https://oa.anu.edu.au) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article from the Canberra Times about the Bedridden:

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126976895?searchTerm=Baterz 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article from Australian publication (print and online) Beat about a Bedridden compilation:

https://beat.com.au/the-bedridden-gorilla-gorilla-gorilla/ 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With two obituaries (dB Magazine and The Canberra Times) and the Canberra Times and Beat articles, it looks like there's enough to keep something. Whether that's an article about The Bedridden, or an article about Baterz, I'm not sure. (Btw, I found several gig listings for "Baterz Bedridden".) There's also something in Overland in 2002, of which I can only see a snippet [152] - perhaps another obit? The book Rock 'n' roll city. Part two, Adelaide Babylon seems to be only in a few libraries in South Australia, so would need someone there to check it out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this. The book, Rock 'n' roll city, part two, Adelaide Babylon is not available in any library service I can access, but I notice that it is self published by the author, Eric Algra. Algra is a photographer, and so I would expect that this volume contains photography - an image of the band - but not SIGCOV. Neither would it be a WP:RS as it would be self published by someone who is not an established expert in the field of music. Any information it contained about the band would likely have come directly from them or their publishing material. So I think it is out on a number of counts. Obituaries are often not independent, but in any case they would support (or not) a page on Baterz. I don't see SIGCOV on the band in (Smith, 2002). There is a bit more in (Jones, 2002). The piece in the Canberra Times is primary. The piece in Beat is secondary though. It's all pretty marginal. Can we make a page from The Beat piece and the Jones obit? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush (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)

Interesting topic but doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:GN or WP:NBOOK. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Australia. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found this mention in a 1978 edition of The Canberra Times, but it's not quite SIGCOV in my view. I also found this mention in The Australian Library Journal and a few sentences about the journal in this issue of Labour History, but again neither are quite SIGCOV. I thought the discussion in this book looked promising, but like most of what I found, the relevant chapter turned out to be written by one of the journal's editors. It looks like The Push from the Bush was part of a larger project encompassing several journals and volumes called Australians: A Historical Library that was launched to mark the bicentennial, and that wider project is definitely notable, but we don't have an article about it that we could merge/redirect this to. I'll keep looking for additional sources, but at this point my !vote would be delete. MCE89 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great stuff finding those sources. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Registering a delete, unfortunately. I couldn't find any additional sources and haven't received a response to my question below. I can't find anything that could give a pass of WP:GNG and don't see a suitable extant merge/redirect target. MCE89 (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A cursory look suggests that this subject is notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Any specific sources you found? I would be very happy if this article were kept, so please do share what you found in your search. More than willing to change to keep if there are sources I missed. MCE89 (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Ryan Hinton and Larry Henderson (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)

Run of the mill news story, and I don't see anything on them from before that. This is a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E problem, and fails WP:GNG as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Police, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who created Killing of Ryan Hinton and Larry Henderson.

What's going to happen with this article is the exact same thing that happened with a different article that I created, and which was also nominated for deletion.

I recently created Rochester, Minnesota racial slur video, and it was nominated for deletion, for the same reason as this one. But soon afterward, a bunch of other people added a whole bunch of content, and the deletion nomination was withdrawn.

The exact same thing will happen with this article.

Give it a week. It if turns out that I'm wrong, then I'll admit that I was wrong, and I'll be OK with deleting it.

R5Y93mdf (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Redirect with history to Cincinnati Police Department. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not mentioned at the Cincinnati article. If you want to merge it there that is another thing, and would be fine. BLP1E doesn't apply because this isn't a biography though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the police department article. Right now it's on the border of just news and part of a pattern. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - nominator fails to articulate how this is a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E problem, and fails WP:GNG. Kire1975 (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy 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)

Alright -- the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and notability for companies because of lack of WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS. There are lots of sources, but they are either WP:ROUTINE, very old announcements of the opening, or not independent. This article has serious NPOV issues to go along with that -- seems like advertising and promotion. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Washington. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft keep: The article is in desperate need for and update and rewrite, but I found a few local newspaper sources about the subject [153] [154] [155] [156] and a mention in Time Magazine [157]. These articles aren't very old and are independent. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Compensation Insurance (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)

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

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

• Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [158][159][160][161][162][163] (Primary, non independent source), [164][165][166][167][168][169]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. Almost all the sources are databases/results lisings and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. This appears to be a dead link. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject was notable enough to have been selected for two Olympics, and achieved the best ever global placing by a Mauritanian (population of 4.3 million people). There are large systemic barriers to access about African topics and people, and the most likely venues for coverage have all, without exception, not published their 1990s daily archives online for whatever reason. The notability of any article is always determined by the existence of sources, not their availability, and the issue with the recent mass deletion of hundreds of articles is that the amount of time it would take to hunt these sources has to be split among hundreds of articles.

Also, the Africathle source is not a dead link for me. Try Webarchive? --Habst (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Africathle source is just a results listing and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. We need better sources than that. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that better secondary sources are needed. --Habst (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Habst has not stated a keep rationale within our PAGs. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and does not have a policy of positive discrimination in which people from one country, or one continent, are favoured over people from other countries and continents, simply by virtue of their country of origin.

If people had wished to make an exception for Olympians from Mauritania from the requirement for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, they had the opportunity to do so in WP:NSPORTS2022. No exception was made.

This is at least the 18th time that Habst has been reminded that WP:NEXIST requires evidence that the sourcing actually exists, not merely assertions that it does exist - JoelleJay identified 16 previous times they had been reminded of this in a previous discussion where Habst was reminded again. Simply trying to exhaust people in this fashion by repeatedly re-running the same failed argument is disruptive and a failure to get the point.

It should also be pointed out that, when paper archives have been digitised, they rarely confer the SIGCOV on Olympians that some insist exists. We had this discussion many times surrounding Olympians who competed in the 19th and early 20th century - once the archives from that period were digitised, it turned out that they typically just gave passing mentions to Olympians in brief coverage of events because simply competing in the Olympics just wasn't a big deal. Mauritania in 1992 is unlikely to have been much different - literacy rates were very low (~35% in 1990 according to the World Bank), with relatively few newspapers, and the ones that did exist will have focused a lot on government business.

None of the sourcing in this article is IRS SIGCOV of the kind required under WP:NSPORT. The Africathle website is also accessible to me, but is a pure listing of sports statistics of exactly the kind excluded by WP:NSPORTS.

In my own search Identified this rather odd story about someone of the same name cutting the wrists of a government driver, but it is not clear that they are the same person. Otherwise nothing but the usual mirrors and listings.

What is needed to keep this article is significant coverage in reliable sources, let me know if that is found. FOARP (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP, thank you for the ping and I respect your contributions. My argument is actually one against positive discrimination -- not even making an effort to check the most likely venues for coverage does impact the neutrality of the encyclopedia. WP:NSPORTS2022 is relevant in this discussion because this article was created in 2015, and its consensus "is meaningfully different from the proposal; the original proposal required that the source be present from inception, but editors in opposition pointed out the problems with this". This is at least the 58th time that an AfD by the nominator has not resulted in delete recently (including most of the AfDs JoelleJay linked), not even including the 100+ PRODs that were reverted with SIGCOV before they could get to AfD.

Comparing this 1990s Olympian to to those from the nineteenth century isn't really apt, because the global media ecosystem has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. Mauritania is country of 4.3 million people that has a literacy rate of 66%, meaning there are millions of media consumers not even including non-written durable media like radio broadcasts.

I agree that more secondary prose-based SIGCOV sourcing is needed for this article, full stop. That isn't against my argument made above. I also came across that sanslimitesn.com story and I don't think it is the same person, but I appreciate your searching effort. --Habst (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

”I agree that more secondary prose-based SIGCOV sourcing is needed for this article, full stop.”

1. There isn’t *ANY* IRS SIGCOV cited in this article or located by any contributor.
2. If you agree this, then why did you deprod this article, and then !vote keep, all without any IRS SIGCOV being located?
3. Any AFD that closes as either delete or redirect is one where the argument to keep did not receive consensus. Please stop running failed arguments in an effort to wear people down through repetition. FOARP (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, and does not have a policy of positive discrimination in which people from one country, or one continent, are favoured over people from other countries and continents ... [Mauritanians] competing in the Olympics just wasn't a big deal. – honestly, saying that the careers of some of the greatest athletes ever from African nations were "just no big deal" is much more discrimination and insulting than the suggestion that we should look in Mauritanian sources before deleting articles about the greatest Mauritanians. And It should also be pointed out that, when paper archives have been digitised, they rarely confer the SIGCOV on Olympians – what are you talking about? 1896-1912 Olympians? Maybe, but past that the Olympics were very well-covered and the vast majority of participants have been found to have SIGCOV when actual archives were searched. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't analyzed the sourcing, but the Ikinyarwanda Wikipedia (didn't know that was a language until now) has a bunch of references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Going through these refs one-by-one:

  1. An article about "the late Cherif Amadou Aïdara of Matam". Not about the subject. Matam is in Senegal.
  2. This appears to be a letter or editorial, and they appear to be talking about an Aidara in Senegal. It is not an independent, reliable source, and it is not clearly about the subject.
  3. This appears to be about a former RFM correspondent, and again seems to be about a Senegalese. The man pictured appears to be in his 30's, however the subject of this article would have been ~50 at the time of it.
  4. I don't see any text here, but the article is entitled, in machine translation, "Why did so many caliphs die in 2017? Answers from Cherif Ibrahima Aïdara Tidiani". This is not about the topic of this article.
  5. "SukËru Koor N°3 with Tafsir Abdourahmane Gaye and Cherif Mamine AÏDARA - MAY 29, 2017". Yeah, this isn't about the person in this article.
  6. "Local 2014 – Sédhiou Chérif Maxfouss Aidara: Bennoo Bokk Yaakar in pole position" - not clearly about the subject, and no text that I could see.
  7. "Video: Transformation of “poop into drinking water in Senegal”, the terrible revelations of Baba Aïdara" - clearly about the same 30-something Senegalese journalist discussed above.
  8. "After being lynched: Chérif Ibrahima apologizes" - not the subject of this article.
  9. A story about "Chérif Samsidine Aidara High School". Not relevant.
  10. Machine translation title: "Jean-Paul Dias said: "Me Wade is Ali Baba; Karim, Ali Baba junior and Sindiély, Nafi Baba"". Irrelevant.
  11. Not an WP:NSPORTS pass.
  12. Not an WP:NSPORTS pass.

  The only thing I've gotten from this is looking at this article was a massive waste of time, because apparently what people are doing on that Wiki is just throwing links in to articles that aren't relevant to the subject. This also makes me feel more secure in simply saying that this guy is very likely to be non-notable and that simply having competed in the Olympics at some point for Mauritania does not mean that significant coverage would have been produced - 1992 is hardly a million years ago: if this guy was some kind of sporting hero, you would see coverage about him today, but you don't.

  As an aside, it would be great if people stopped posting links to lists of other links with the idea that others should look through them (EDIT: or with the effect if not the intent that other editors will simply post "keep" !votes based on the supposed existence of sourcing without looking at what is contained at the link). FOARP (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1992 is hardly a million years ago: if this guy was some kind of sporting hero, you would see coverage about him today, but you don't. – Many, many, many sportspeople are notable without receiving coverage from the present. People get best covered when they are active. And do you know how many newspapers from his time - the ones very likely to have covered their greatest athlete at the world championships – have been searched? ZERO! BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete: per BeanieFan11, sources in native lanugage FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @FuzzyMagma - I just posted above about what those "sources" are. Literally zero of them are about the subject of this article. FOARP (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks and sorry, my comment was a sloppy one, as Mauritania uses Arabic for publication. I did some digging in arabic for his arabic name (شريف بابا ايدارا) and nothing came out of it. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for the WP:GNG to be met here for this sportsperson. Let'srun (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fika Recordings (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)

Of the sources in the article, the only kinda in-depth coverage is in WeGotTickets (a ticketing company?) and DrownedInSound (web-zine). There's an interview w/ the founder in BBC Music blog, but I'm not convinced any of these are strong enough reliable sources for a notability argument. All the others are just mentions of Fika in the context of an album that has been released etc. WP:BEFORE in newspapers.com, google news/books, pressreader didn't turn up any additional coverage beyond mentions. Considered ATD but I don't see a clear merge or redirect target as the founder doesn't appear to be notable and the record label is associated with multiple musical groups. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Kingdom. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd say this clears the hurdle of WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, and the Drowned in Sound and BBC coverage are solid starts on sourcing. Chubbles (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. it's always harder for music labels to qualify, as they may not have direct or significant coverage per policies, but in my opinion it should be kept due to coverage of their artists, hence considered a notable label. i,e Authors qualify if they have book reviews, hence labels qualify if they have artist reviews. Darkm777 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negousse Mengistou (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 article currently only has references to databases, and all I could find in secondary sources was a namedrop at [[170]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Ethiopia. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment; summoning @Habst, as this is their area of expertise. I can't immediately find any english coverage of this person, but then again the sources are most likely to be smaller Ethiopian newspapers from the 50s and 60s written in amharic. I will keep looking for sources. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't know that "smaller Ethiopian newspapers" covered cyclists. Not all sports get much coverage in every country at every time. Anyway, Wikipedia's current rules state that the coverage must be uncovered before creating articles, not after. Geschichte (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @AnonymousScholar49, I appreciate being called an expert, but I am just another editor like you. The subject's Amharic name is ንጉሴ መንግስቱ, and it is used in a few articles ([171] [172] (use webarchive)), but mostly mentions that I can find. He might be covered in Jack Trickey's interview considering he was one of two cyclists to run into him, but we can't say that for sure as it's paywalled.

  And for the record, not to be semantic but SPORTCRIT only mandates that SIGCOV must exist in articles, not from their inception; that rule was not in place at the time this article was created in 2014. --Habst (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mizell (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 WP:ROTM American pastor/businessman. Promotional page (WP:PEACOCK) that appears like an advertorial CV (WP:NOT). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I would have PROD'ed this, utterly non-notable person. Reads like a CV/resume. I'm not sure this is appropriate for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:BASIC. This reads like a press release. Six of the seven sources appear to be his own publications. The seventh is from his church, so he likely wrote that also. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and reads like a promotional resume. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Reads like a CV/Resume, promotional article and totally non-notable person. Sources are only self-published. Fails WP:NBASIC, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:PROMO. If this wasn't at AfD it may well qualify for G11 speedy deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii (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)

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Greece, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.

This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).

I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's secondary school, Kitende (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 school. Nothing to establish notability and would seem unlikely any RSs exist. fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no indication that this passes WP:NSCHOOL, there are some articles about the schools sports results and a fire but not much on the school itself. --hroest 13:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL, a non notable secondary school. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ali Al-Malky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. No significant third party coverage. Olympians.sa appears to be a primary source of the Saudi OIympic federation, in any case it seems just to a database listing of athletes. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of indepth third party sourcing. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Finding sources for these types of athletes takes significant time and effort. I meant to only add the Arabic name I found as a note (which differs from Olympedia's Arabic name محمد علي المالكى), but I accidentally removed the PROD tag and then reverted my own edit. Then User:Liz re-removed the PROD tag in Special:Diff/1289174473, which I totally understand, but again I want to note that I de-prodded it in error.

The reason why I didn't want to de-PROD this right away was because I wanted to do a source search using both Arabic names which might take several days. I doubt we'll have time now that three other Olympian articles were nominated within minutes of this one (see 1 2 3), along with over 100 other recent PRODs that need to be dealt with. These mass-AfDs and PRODs have been controversial, because if you nominate articles with high enough frequency there are bound to be notable ones that fall through.

On the substance, the athlete was an Olympic Saudi Arabian sprinter that was likely covered in extant Saudi sources in the 1970s, but both those sources and coverage of the competitions he might have succeeded in, like the GCC Games, are not available to us easily. --Habst (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're trying the line that this "has been controversial" to dissuade others, the village pump has been running for 2 months without an outcome. Plus still recycling the tired NEXIST argument that has been discounted in these athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, I have a lot of respect for your contributions and I hope you can show me the same respect. I would never "try lines" because I never say something in AfDs that I don't believe. Yes, the village pump discussion has been running for months without an outcome, which is why it is controversial. WP:N (which includes NEXIST) isn't tired in the same way that WP:V doesn't get tired – they are core P&G used in creating an encyclopedia. When has it ever been discounted? --Habst (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not having an outcome doesn't mean it's controversial. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this case the reason there is no outcome yet is because there have been hundreds of comments both for and against, which is why the topic is controversial. I'm not even trying to say that there is community consensus against it right now – just that it is controversial, and it presents a problem. --Habst (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all controversial compared to other users starting 50 AFDs on the same topic in one day, 50-100 concurrent prods, etc. And certainly it is still much less controversial than the creation of all the lousy articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, I agree and appreciate your contributions. But neither of those other scenarios are currently happening, while this is a current issue. --Habst (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there is an Obituary in Arabic from Alayam about him + plus the sources in the articles FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Designs PLC (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 company. Coverage is routine and WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Company brochure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]