Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

10 May 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 09	May 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Cybelle Al Ghoul

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Middle East, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Heylen

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belgium. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal Javan

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

Defunct newspaper that fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Iran. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WhoIsCentreLeft, did you assess the existing Farsi sources? MarioGom (talk) 11:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleuger

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

Non-notable company. Covered mostly by WP:TRADES. The best article about the company is this but it is more about Alster fountain than the company. WP:SPAs editing history is also problematic. Overall, clearly fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the references. --Trimax503 (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ATA. It would be better if you point out the references (that meet WP:CORPDEPTH standard) and why you are just interested in AfDs as a newbie? Gheus (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Engine

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Previous AfD in 2010 was not very convincing, with a lot of trivial coverage thrown around. Notability is not inherited, so a game engine is not notable because the games it was used in are. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find any reliable sources. JTZegers (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article currently includes one piece of significant coverage: review in a print magazine fr:Linux Pratique. The previous AfD provided a link to Google Scholar search, the first two results are significant coverage: research papers about Total Annihilation: Spring (previous name of the engine): [1], [2]. Those three pieces of SIGCOV are enough for notability. If this discussion still determines the article to be deleted, I think the alternative to deletion is to merge the article to Total Annihilation#Engine remakes. --Mika1h (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the engine would be off-topic to mention in the Total Annihilation article itself, it's practically advertising as it only cites its own page. With regards to the research papers, WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not passed as they do not show how it is significant to the general reader. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't quite follow how WP:INDISCRIMINATE is related to notability. The papers show that the game is used in the field of research of artificial intelligence in video games. It's up to the editor(s) of the article to present that information palatable to the general reader. --Mika1h (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Clinical Sexology

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

Unreferenced other than to its own website. Fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:ORG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Education, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Algerian War

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

Not notable, only one source supports the claim of a war between 1677 and 1682. The "War" section is WP:OR as it not only fails to mention an actual war, but also describes English losses between 1674 and 1681. Kolno (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)Kolno[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Algeria, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus O. Shivers

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

He was president of the American Thyroid Association for 1 year (standard term) but I can't find any policy or discussion suggesting this would confer notability viaWP:NPROF. There doesn't seem to be much out there besides mentions confirming that he gave a presentation or went to a conference, and I can't find anything about notable publications / major contributions to the field / prestigious associations or the like. I don't think he meets WP:ANYBIO either - very sparse independent sourcing and he has no entry on the US national biographical directory. Zzz plant (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mississippi. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuhiro Hamada

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

PROD added by User:RossEvans19 to say that the article fails WP:GNG, however, PROD was declined on the basis that this had a PROD removed in 2016 by a now globally locked account. My own searches in Japanese found nothing better than Gekisaka, which is far from significant. Given that his career was very brief and played at a very low level, I don't expect any significant coverage to be found. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Sloane

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

Barely passes the deprecated WP:NFOOTY but article seems to be nowhere near WP:GNG. This contains a bundle of transfer announcements from the clubs he played for, with a couple of paragraphs from the BBC on one of those transfers in particular, which does not demonstrate depth of coverage. C 679 12:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. C 679 12:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:21, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lopez

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsuccessful state congressional candidate. Other claim to fame is being Vice-Chairman of a libertarian group within the Republican Party, which doesn't seem enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN either. Lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Leonstojka (talk) 12:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nori motive

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

Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Um, we have a textbook called "Periods and Nori motives" in addition to several other papers discussing the topic, independent of Nori (see also https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Nori%2Bmotive) So, the notability here seems clear. -- Taku (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of coverage in academic source. Just give a quick look to Google Scholar and Google Books. MarioGom (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep criterion 3 - no justification has been provided for why the citations present in the article do not allow it to meet WP:GNG. Stockhausenfan (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Barry (New Zealand paediatrician)

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

Seems like a great person, but does not appear to satisfy notability criteria WP:BIO with multiple significant coverage from independent RS. I’m no expert on WP:NACADEMIC but I don’t think the 2 reasonably cited articles are enough. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and New Zealand. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 06:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Point 1 of ANYBIO is receiving a significant honour. I'd say that his QSO meets that mark; there are only 226 recipients. If we're invoking WP:NACADEMIC (which seems reasonable) he satisfies point 3 as fellow of the RCP and RACP, and seems clearly more notable than the average professor. As for GNG, this [3] is one source; can anyone do better? CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruneian–Igan War

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

Contested Prod without improvement. Other than the single reference listed, searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this event. Searches in A History of Brunei by Graham Saunders did not even see a mention of it. Similarly, nothing was mentioned in Brunei - History, Islam, Society and Contemporary Issues. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Brunei. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, sources about this war in specifically is rare Syazwi Irfan (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aramean people

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

Nominating Aramean people (recently accepted draft) for deletion, per WP:BADFORK (of Assyrian people).

Procedure & earlier consensus:

First, I believe that the procedure here should have been a WP:SPLIT discussion at Assyrian people, being the controversial subject it is (GS proposed). However, Robert McClenon reasoned that a deletion discussion could serve as consensus; which I am now initiating shortly after move to mainspace, to avoid potential edit warring.
Separate articles for a modern 'Aramean-Syriac/Aramean people' been discussed several times before. An old AfD from 2008 resulted in a delete, which was endorsed in 2014.

WP:BADFORK:

Both this article and the Assyrian people (named so per WP:COMMONNAME) article describe speakers of Neo-Aramaic (mainly Surayt/Turoyo and Sureth) from Turkey, Syria and Iraq, calling themselves "Sur(y)oye"/"Suraye" in their native language, belonging to a variety of eastern Christian churches (mainly SOC, ACOE, CCC and SCC) - I kind of borrowed the definition from Future Perfect at Sunrise in the linked deletion review, who also correctly concluded that this is not a division between two ethnic groups, but between two ideological perspectives on a single one: a division between several ideological factions among the group's diaspora communities in the west, which all prefer different names and have different ideas about their cultural "identity", but which all still claim to be speaking for this one, single, native minority population in the Middle East..
Modern scholarship views these groups (including Chaldeans and Syriacs) as the same modern ethnic group. I think that Mugsalot made a good summary on this here.
Frequently used sources in the article do treat them as the same group, regardless of term(s) used. Example are [4] [5] [6]
A very large number of sources in the article use the term "Syriac(s)". There is also a large number of Turkish sources, which most use the term "Süryani". All of these would fit in the Assyrian people article as well.
It is also noteworthy that even political factions (including Aramean ones) usually consider it the same group (for example, see Atto (2011) p. 37). Thus, it being a separate ethnic group does not even align with the views of political factions, if relevant at all.

Other comments:

The article does contain WP:OR, e.g. the section "Syriac-Aramean New Year" is based on a news article from the World Council of Arameans, with some additional synthesis.
SyriacPress.com is heavily used. It's not a WP:RS (OT: Ironically, this website belongs to the Dawronoye movement/faction, frequently using all terms to describe the group).
There are of course parts that can be merged with one or more articles; I have not cross-checked how much of the early history part is also included at Arameans, for example. But that is another discussion. Shmayo (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Addressing procedure & earlier consensus:

Aramean and Assyrian topic has for decades been subject for disputes, constantly with the Aramean articles being opposed, by Shmayo, as early as 2008 and every year up until now, for 17 years. Looking at the talk pages of both the Assyrian and Aramean articles, it is clear that this topic is a highly sensitive one, with attempts to adequately write of Arameans more thoroughly.

A WP:SPLIT was not seen as the most fitting way, partly because there is only three sentences covering the Aramean topic and because a discussion on the Assyrian talk page has been facilitated multiple times in the past, but with no conclusions. Draft approach was also recommended "because the inclusion of new material in the article to be split may itself result in more conflict when the community is largely divided. The edits to add another topic to an article in order to split it might be reverted, which would just make more edit wars." [7]

I think it is problematic to make comparisons between Aramean people and the previous ones, firstly because the 2008 article is way too old to act as a consensus and I'd argue that the 2014 is as well. What is also different is the fact that the 2014 was because there was no Syriac side in it, all consisted of sock-puppets etc.

Addressing WP:BADFORK:

Aramean people has been filed the correct way, through AfC. It is not a WP:FORK of Assyrian people, based on the people calling themselves Suryoye, would in my opinion not disregard Arameans from having a article. Modern scholarship, despite arguments if the same people, still argue that Arameans are indeed a ethnic identity, aside from that, Arameans have as of 2014 officially been recognized as a distinct ethnic minority in 2014, in which I would like to quote Sorabino: "Besides that, the very notion of any "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians from the Near East became practically inapplicable on formal grounds, since 2014, when Israel officially recognized Arameans in Israel as a distinctive community. Application of Assyrian designation as "umbrella" term for that article would therefore be quite problematic." [8]

Please, also note that we already have a Arameans in Israel article, but a article about the same people in a broader sense, outside of Israel is objected.

Regarding the Süryani term, the most used Turkish source in the article is [9], which writes: "Syriacism go back much further than Christianity and Jesus, to the Aramaeans." It would not be fitting in Assyrian people. Aside from this source, Wiktionary, translates it as Syriac, so does the Oxford Turkish dictionary, the official dictionary of the Turkish government states that Süryani means Syriac/Aramaic Christian.

WP:NPOV, being one of Wikipedias first pillars would be compromised if there is no Aramean article or adequately mentioning of Arameans. As of now, the Assyrian people which is argued for, contains merely three sentences about Arameans. Its title, its flag, and Arameans undermined as merely a "subgroup" of the Assyrian identity is both contradicting WP:NPOV and legal recognitions (2014 Israel recognition). Arameans does also meet the criteria Wikipedia:Notability.

Addressing other comments:

Aramean people is the first article to cover Arameans, while not being a direct copy of another previous fork, or a fork itself or overlapping information. It includes totally new information from antiquity, early Christianity, Middle Ages, traditions, culture etc.

Regarding the use of WP:OR and WP:RS: as stated here, the draft was not finished, I stated that it did not have enough sources. But I am guessing due to the urgency of the dispute, it had to be reviewed, and per Robert McClenon it was possible to do so. In no means does this mean that it won't be further developed.

Merging one or more parts of the article to other articles just fragments the encyclopedia, why not have a dedicated article for a legally recognized people, a WP:NOTABILITY people and to not compromise WP:NPOV than to split Aramean related content to various other articles? Making a comprehensive read of the subject would be near impossible, its both inconvenient and inaccessible for many.

We also have Aramean (Syriac) football clubs, Aramean-Syriac flag, World Council of Arameans, and on the Swedish WikiPedia we have another Aramean article [10], on both the Dutch and German WikiPedias, there are a Assyrian and Aramean article, which have been working much better than the English only Assyrian article in terms of edit-warring, disputes etc.

It was not until recently Chaldeans also had their page, but was deleted by a involved editor from the Assyrian side of things a few months ago. Arameans have been denied any recognition on Wikipedia for decades, with editors involved in this dispute leading the way.

We now have a near complete article that just needs a bit of touch up and development, we also have a WP:GS discussion regarding these topics, I am afraid that this WP:GS will constantly have to be used and not allowed a sunset date considering how sensitive this matter is, I think multiple edit-wars, disputes etc. will arise. We now possibly have a WP:GS, a article in accordance to their notability and recognition.

Aramean people has been rated as a B class article. As a fresh article, which was not completed when it was sent for review, I think it demonstrates the potential of this article.

To bring up WP:BADFORK again, Aramean people is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as it does not "covers the same subject as another page". Neither is it a WP:POVFORK as it is not "created to be developed according to a particular point of view." It serves as another subject, a subject that is not written of in Assyrian people (except for three sentences). Aramean people serves as a article about the Aramean people, not a point of view of Assyrians, as it only mentions Assyrians historically in antiquity. Apart from that, the history, organizations, recognitions, traditions etc. are written about the Arameans.

I want to bring forward notability of Arameans, apart from scholarly studies, if of interest to any of you (sorry for WP:BLUDGEON):

Syrianska Riksförbundet, SAUF, WCA, Aramean Federation NL, Syriac Orthodoxy in Turkey identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodoxy in Sweden identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodox Church in Germany identifying as Arameans, Aramean Music, Aramean Music 2nd.

Google trends:

Google trends showing more searches for Arameans than Assyrians, in Germany. More searches for the equivalent of Arameans in Sweden than Assyrians, see this. (In their native languages)

Football clubs representing Arameans: Tur Abdin Gutersloh, Syrianska FC, Aramäer Gutersloh, Arameiska-Syrianska , Örebro Syrianska, Aramäer Heilbronn, FC Turo d'Izlo Aramäer Gronau, FC Aramäer Pfullendorf, Aramäer Harsewinkel, ASG Aramäer Ahlen, and so many more.

Social media: 89,205 Instagram posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., with views in the millions. 23,934 TikTok posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., also with views in the millions.

I also want to note that, the opposing party of this dispute will mostly be from the Assyrian people side. Wlaak (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Aramean people article is not a WP:FORK of the Assyrian article. It covers important aspects of Aramean identity, history, and culture that the Assyrian article doesn’t include. Other than that, they are completely unrelated in terms of content.

It follows WP:NPOV, presenting the Arameans fairly and focusing on their identity, history, and culture according to WP:RS. It doesn’t mix them with other groups, keeping the content clear and focused on the Aramean people. Having a separate article about the Arameans helps ensure WP:NPOV is maintained. It covers parts of Aramean identity that the Assyrian article doesn’t, backed by reliable sources. Anyone researching modern Arameans wouldn’t use the Assyrian article. As Wlaak pointed out, it would not be appropriate on official grounds. Arameans are legally recognized as an ethnic group in Israel, and there’s a Wikipedia page about them on Wikipedia.

WP:NOTABILITY, the article meets the rules. More and more scholars are recognizing the Arameans as a distinct ethnic group, and reliable sources confirm this, e.g. here here here.

Since the 2014 deletion review (which had sock puppets), newer research (e.g., Akopian, King) has started to recognize Arameans as a separate group in diaspora studies, meeting WP:NOTABILITY and making it appropriate to revisit the article. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Ram

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

Does not meet GNG and SNG WP:ENT Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oloko Shapico

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

Does not meet GNG and SNG WP:MUSICBIO Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER and in general, WP:GNG. A cursory search turned Oloko Shapico out to be a musician who just started his career... I'd stop here. Insufficient sources to establish any substance of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane MacArthur

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. 3 of the sources are from own site. Promotional? ash (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what? We might say that these citations are WP:PRIMARY, and so do not count towards WP:N. But that's not an issue, there are plenty of other WP:RS here as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You seem to be cherry picking. I questioned her notability, period. The article discloses that she studied, she is the member of a few councils, she watched a space launch, she won a social media competition, and she may or may not write for a small magazine. How is this notable ash (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're changing the nomination? It's about you not seeing the WP:RS sources as adequate weight, rather than you wanting to discount the other primary sources. Any other nominations you're planning to use later? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, can I? Would you mind terribly if I bolded the first sentence? Or if I put a semi-colon instead of a full-stop after the word "site"? ash (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is a fellow of a major scholarly society (elected in 2012 to the Royal Astronomical Society, per this announcement ) which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. Best, Bridget (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NACADEMIC criteria are clear and undisputable. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~There is no evidence that she is an FRAS, the source cited above is about Ian Ridpath, not her. If you check her page you will see no mention of it.~~ She may have been elected to the board, but the source provided does not verify that. No indications of anything close to a pass of WP:NPROF, plus lots of problems. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum after checking the sources, many if the claims in the article are not verified by the sources provided. For instance the claim of election to the RAS council is sourced to the organization webpage which has no such statement. No sources for her education and more unverified claims which I did not see on her web page. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ldm1954: You are wrong – the source above isn't just about Ridpath. Her election (among others) is mentioned on that page in the "New Fellows" section: "The following were put forward for election as Fellows of the Society on 12 October 2012...". Bridget (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, edited.

However, according to both Royal Astronomical Society and what is on the society webpage a "Fellow" is just another name for "Member" for which students can apply. For WP:NPROF we only consider "Fellow" when these are, to quote, a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor such as for APS, MRS, FRS etc. Hence FRAS does not pass WP:NPROF#C3. My vote remains Strong Delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably WP:TOOSOON. I have not found any coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, and as Ldm1954 has pointed out, being a "fellow" of the Royal Astronomical Society is the same as being a member, and does not meet WP:NPROF#C3. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I completely agree with what Ldm1954 has said. I don't believe that being a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society can be compared with being a Fellow of, for example, the Royal Society. Someone with specific knowledge of the Royal Astronomical Society can correct me, if necessary, but I suspect that being a Fellow just means that one satisfies some minimal qualification and has paid one's dues. Elizabeth MacArthur may become notable in the future but she's nowhere near being notable at present as her publication and citation record is very modest. Athel cb (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mattu University

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

Non-notable university. Most of the sources are from the same university's website. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 textbooks criticism

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

Insignificant and irrelevant unless proven otherwise, this kind of events can happen, it happens every year, textbooks can be criticised, that doesn't mean it deserves a separate article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also has issues with its quality and literally every year and even day, textbooks are criticised, this type of events are not suitable to stay in Wikipedia. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has failed to make a case why the sourcing situation is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - You have failed to understand that the article is not relevant. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet Why do you Keep vote, when you are deletion nominator of this article. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 05:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you can vote for your own nomination (it's implied you vote to delete it). Anyway, this seems notable from a first glance, although the page name should be less generic and there are issues with tone and style. jolielover♥talk 17:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced, though it does need to be copy-edited and the title should be changed to something more descriptive. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added strikethrough on nominator's bolded vote. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:NOPAGE. This is an aspect of Education in Bangladesh. Lone incidents do not need to be split off into their own articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my cursory examination of the article, and the nominators failure to provide a reason, as stated by Cortador. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, such criticism are often heard Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens can someone please rename and retitle this to clarify that it is specific to Bangladesh? The lead doesn't even make this clear. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The quality of this discussion mirrors the quality of the article. Please focus on whether or not the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siddhesh Kadam

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

Fails NPOL, not inherently notable, sources are not significant and are only annoucing his appointment and coverage related to a small controversy, but no significant coverage of the subject found in multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 05:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Freedom Declaration

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

Clearly WP:NOTNEWS, only handfull of coverage by trash Indian media, which are currently in run for TRP. This topic is not enought notable to have a stand alone article. GrabUp - Talk 05:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Del per nomination. One "writer cum leader" sending a letter is hardly encyclopaedic.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Nation

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources are PR stuff and no coverage from independent reliable sources, fails NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 05:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article reads like an advertisement for the company ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject is a UAE-based collective management organization that has received significant coverage from industry sources like Billboard, satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The article can be further revised for tone and neutrality. Cleanup or advert tagging would be more appropriate than deletion. Subject has no relationship to past deleted articles titles "Music Nation". Mrmctorso (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toptani Shopping Center

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable shopping center. Fails WP:NCORP. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - vague, florid marketing language. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Regional Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a region within a state and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladakh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ladakh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andaman and Nicobar Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sewerslvt

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted as failing WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla, Voorts, NikolaiVektovich, OwenX, TappyTurtle, Kawaiidumbassery, and ToadetteEdit: Tagging all of the participants of the previous AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet notability guidelines. I did not take a look at the sources in the article because I am currently away, but no WP:SIRS sources on Google. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 11:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am now back home and have looked at the sources in the article. They seem to contribute to notability, so I will be breaking down:
- this comes from the website of an independent author who has made other indepth articles, so reliability can contribute towards notability standards.
- this only mentions the subject in a part of a sentence, so it does not count towards notability.
- this is another brief mention, and so it doesn't count towards notability.
- this source, a Dancing Astronaut source, discusses the subject in some detail, so it can contribute to notability. Another Dancing Astronaut source has a two paragraph statement so it could also contribute to notability.
Given that three sources contribute to notability, I will go to ~~weak delete~~. If I missed something, please ping me. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reading this, it has come to the conclusion that the first source cannot be used at all due to it being a self published source, and the fourth source turns out to be a brief review. My delete rationale still stands out. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Davis (Canadian actress)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

disperse into etymology sections of the corresponding entities and then delete. The page is woefully underrefenced, most probably because it lacks eyeballs: when there is an etymology section in the individual page, it is a way higher chance it will be verified. The very fact that it does not have "refimprove" tag shows that nobody cares/sees it. --Altenmann >talk 04:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. Little added value in bringing these together on one page. Wire723 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PurpleDOG Post Production

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

Not finding enough sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:ORG. All of the sources listed in the article fail in significant coverage. Additionally, an internet search did not turn up anything else of note. Maybe a Canadian film editor knows of more sources? JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lakshadweep Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 03:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Indian National Congress. --Altenmann >talk 04:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chandigarh Territorial Congress Committee

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

Fails WP:GNG, not a notable state unit of the Indian National Congress, as it is only a territory and has no legislative assembly having noteworthy state-level elections. Only the units of states and union territories having legislative assemblies are notable enough to have their own articles. I am also nominating the following related pages because [of same reason as above]:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation here yet which is even more important in a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Indian National Congress. --Altenmann >talk 04:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

2025 papal conclave papabili

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

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.

And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope

kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the 2025 papal conclave. Perhaps it would be best to merge the two articles because it would be most prudent for the future. M.VIPSANIUS.AGRIPPA (talk)
Keep: Per Ad Orientem. Times have changed and we are getting way more hits on the article than 2013. Papabili are discussed everywhere and hence, it's not OR or SYNTH. There will not be any coverage after conclave itself is a projected prediction and hence COMMONSENSE takes precedence, IMO. — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave as WP:RECENTISM not warranting splitting. After the conclave and new pope, the papabili list would no longer be actual and of limited interest IMO. Brandmeister^talk 08:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: No other papal conclave has an article dedicated to its papabili. If no other conclave's papabili have merited their own article, despite having notable papabili, then this should not be any different. I cannot see this information being pertinent once a new Pope is selected. WP:NOTNEWS Flangalanger (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really a great argument in AfD. Those conclaves could just as easily have a list created for them if the sourcing exists. RachelTensions (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has enough media attention and merging it back into the main article would continue the war Braganza (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i am fine with merging it into Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave Braganza (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge): the main problem with such a list isn't that papabili are not notable in and of themselves, it's simply that there is no subjective way we could determine who counts as one. As stated above, it would be blatantly original research for us to handpick sources to use and then impose an arbitrary threshold on the number of sources (e.g. seven). What this means is that this article is basically Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners. This is inappropriate because of WP:OR and because we are not a newspaper. For avoidance of doubt, I don't object to talking about papabili at all, simply that all we need is a paragraph in 2025 papal conclave saying: "news source X listed [...] as papabili, and news source Y also listed [...]" – that is as much as we are allowed to do as an encyclopedia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If a merge is what is decided on, I would propose as a target not 2025 papal conclave, but Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. That is where a similar table existed prior to the creation of this article, and the existence of a table has already been rehashed several times and shot down in favor of prose at Talk:2025 papal conclave ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just stating that nobody is going to care about these people in the future is crystalballing and not a reason to delete the article. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.T v x1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb _words^deeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?

kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2025 papal conclave per the merge comments above. Sundayclose (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the 2025 papal conclave. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, no need for a separate article. Nevermore27 (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Background Each papal conclave from 1939 onwards has a papabile section. I'm working up an omnibus table (revamping the List of papal conclaves) for ease of reference in my sandbox, starting at 1903. Just adding up the cited names the number of papabile are are, respectively, 0,0,0, nine or more than twelve, 5, 10, 2, 2, 8, and TBD. Would this table be subject to Afd? Apply the same logic. kencf0618 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. Graham (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no doubt a Pope will be elected before anything can be done about this article and when one is, the list becomes basically irrelevant. The article should not outlive the conclave itself.Amyzex (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE. I'll also take a moment to note my opinion that some sort of actual list in the article is fine. I don't want my merge vote to be used as a cudgel against any editor with an interest in writing about papabile. Wikipedians with a greater interest in the subject can in fact come up with a guideline for inclusion that does not require original research. I believe Wikipedia is a work in progress and it is fine for names to be added to and fall off such a list over time.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge with 2025 papal conclave.) I understand the instinct that we shouldn't be mucking about in the weeds here making judgement calls about who gets on the list. On other elections pages these choices are commonplace: what states/seats do you characterize as 'swing', what prognosticator's election ratings are notable enough to include in a table, or, most relevant here, who are the main candidates in a future election. See: 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries (Ugh, what an unwieldy list). We have to make judgement calls sometimes, and I think the seven source requirement is a decent measure of whether someone is considered a frontrunner. Side note: without this page existing, 2025 papal conclave and Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave will go right back to getting constant edits adding, removing, tweaking the papabili list. Having it here makes it more manageable. If it balloons at least it isn't harming the other two pages. The Savage Norwegian 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Thriley (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not necessary and can be in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bte3000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary. If the 2013 edition could be deleted, this should. The 2013 papabili was more notable in my opinion. João^hola 18:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unpredictable! Please wait with writing about this until after the conclave. Happytravels (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mere speculation. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - literally dozens of reliable sources from around the world, showing significant coverage. It's non-stop coverage on all the networks, newspapers, and webs. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do all the sources list the same cardinals as frontrunners? If not, we can't curate our own list as this page does. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the stand-alone article, merge key information. Like the list articles created for previous papal conclaves, this one is highly speculative, and fails multiple Wikipedia standards, as noted above. Drdpw (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge This is way to much for just speculation to have a standalone article with this much detail. Merging to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave is quite appropriate because it already has the same columns for country, position, and date created cardinal, allowing for a simpler presentation. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. I think there is value (that passes WP:10YEARTEST) in tracking papabili, as it reflects divisions and issues within the church. It is similar to tracking discussed candidates for political elections. That said, a separate article is overkill, and likely incomplete given that so many of the electors are discussed as papabili. So why not merge this with the electors article, perhaps just by adding a column to the table of electors tracking references for papabili discussion? Mgruhn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others' arguments. 🏳️‍🌈JohnLaurens333 (need something?) 20:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave: It makes more sense to have one detailed article about the subject than many undetailed articles. And why should this one have a papabili article when no other conclave has one? Hlsci (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is a solid article on candidates, one which holds its place among articles on the Catholic Church. Although a merger back into the 2025 papal conclave wouldn't be that harmful, this is a good standard to set on candidates for Pope, and I would love to see even more detail here. It could even be expanded in the future, with historical detail. PickleG13 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave. There is definitely some good sourced material worth keeping here, and it can be incorporated into the article on the conclave itself, but having a separate article is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep: This is major news and people deserve to be reading about who may become the next pope so this should not be deleted under any circumstances. Objectsshowsarethebest (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave. Short=term info, e.g. election candidates, horses, is trivial after the event. WP:EVENT has relevant issues.
Keep: There is enough sources to justify a stand alone article. Lightoil (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into 2025 papal conclave. If the table/list is based on published WP:RSes, then it should be considered encyclopedic, much like electoral polling is relevant to election articles, and odds are relevant to sporting event articles. The existence and coverage of public speculation is factual; that's different than the speculations being themselves facts. (We have articles on God, not because there is consensus that God is true, but that there is consensus that people believe in God.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 18:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of reliable sources, but they are all WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. In order to have any sort of proper, Wikipedia page on the topic, we would need articles reporting on who articles are calling papabili - not the articles calling people papabili themselves. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely speculative with no concrete definition of who is considered papabili. Baseless media speculation should not be an article, just as we don't have people considered likely to win the 2028 United States Presidential Election. At most a merge to main article if there is anything of substance here. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with deleting this article, but to be fair, we do have articles about primary elections and the vice presidential shortlists. Flangalanger (talk) 21:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others; article contains information useful in the 2025 Papal Conclave page (or the cardinal electors page) for popular speculation on who we all thought the next pope would be, but we are not the news nor are we a speculation site. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:00, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave per WP:NOPAGE (the information is already in the prose at 2025 papal conclave). We use editorial judgement whether a stand-alone page should be created or whether the information is best incorporated into another page. In this case, the nom is correct, the list was highly speculative and would not pass WP:10Y. --Enos733 (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here and I think arguments might change now that the decision has been made and made quickly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 papal conclave#Papabili. These cardinals weren't declared candidates in a political election and shouldn't be presented in a way that makes them look as though they were. Rather, they were the subject of media speculation as potential contenders to be elected, which is notable enough to be mentioned in an appropriate article but not a reasonable selection for an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to 2025 papal conclave. Yes, it passes GNG, but it doesn't show long-term notability. There's also the OR issue. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artforum Culture Foundation

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

Has not had any references added for at least eight years. References section is empty, with only three external links. Carlinal (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samba Fall

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

Declined prod. All sources are databases/results. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 10 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) 03:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no significnt coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources are databases, there are over a dozen newspaper hits listing his Olympic results. I agree that additional sourcing is needed, and I expanded the article to include the subject's Arabic name just before it was nominated as part of a controversial series of hundreds of AfDs and PRODs by the nominator that in the vast majority of cases do not end in a delete outcome. The subject was one of only six athletes from Mauritania (population 4.3 million) to qualify for the Olympics in 1992, and the sources that would have covered him, without exception, have not even published their 1990s daily archives online yet per BBC,

Chaab: No publications before 2020
Free Horizons: No publications before 2020
alakhbar.info: No publications before 2017
essirage.net: Seems to only archive publications from this year
lauthentic.info: No archives before 2023

The issue here is clear that sources aren't available to us, but notability is always determined by the existence of sources, never by the state of sourcing in an article. --Habst (talk)

Redirect to Mauritania at the 1992 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hygien-Nicaise Lombocko

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

Declined prod. The only non database/results source is this which is a small mention in a very large document and not SIGCOV. There is insufficient indepth sources to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Invoking NEXIST does not a give free pass to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 10 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) 02:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no significnt coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"small mention in a very large document" – I think this demonstrates some misunderstanding, the size of the document has nothing to do with its suitability as a notability-contributing source. I agree that better SIGCOV is needed in the article, but notability is always determined by extant sources and never by their presence in an article, and Republic of the Congo sources are, to be frank, completely inaccessible to us from the subject's time period, with not a single one publishing their daily coverage from the 1980s. Subject was one of only five male athletes to qualify for the Olympics for the Congo in 1988. --Habst (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Republic of the Congo at the 1988 Summer Olympics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ati

AfDs for this article:

(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 current sources in the article are all primary to the clubs the subject has played or coached for, and I couldn't find anything to indicate notability elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no significnt coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiempo Sin Verte

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

No notability, fails WP:NSONG. Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it not a notable song with much coverage aside from promotions. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Patrol. Lack of interest would suggest no consensus, but the arguments raised are both convincing and policy-compliant. Recommend closure over relisting. Spartathenian (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's with these AFD Patrol comments? Let's leave the closing decisions to the closers, and keep the discussion on track. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sirfurboy. Please see WP:AfD Patrol. The object of patrolling is to ensure discussions are "on track" via policy compliance. Furthermore, any editor can make a closure recommendation, and the point of my "closure over relisting" comment was that this case, having just reached its seven-day cut-off, might have been relisted without due consideration of the two arguments raised. Relisting should be avoided, if possible, because of the weight it adds to current day nomination pages. Since my recommendation, case status was significantly altered by Ingratis, whose argument is valid, and so Explicit had to relist, correctly in my view. Spartathenian (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. That project is long inactive, but the "what to do" section is all good practice and to be encouraged. When I do those things, I just bold the word comment, because that is what I am doing. However, note that none of the six suggestions involve providing a recommendation to the closer. We generally let closers arrive at their own independent assessment based on the discussion. Closers usually have a lot of experience at AFD they can rely on, but if you want to steer them at all, just bold a !vote and explain why you lean that way. Nevertheless, by all means do comment to try to keep discussions focussed on policy and guidance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've taken that on board, and am using comment now. I didn't know the patrol is inactive, though. Thanks and best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the references given, but if adjudged non-notable then Redirect to album per WP:NSONG. Ingratis (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:NSONG requires that the song is "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The article has over 20 of those as references and more can still be easily be found on Google search. 1arch (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran. The song is not independently notable, although the Album appears to be. GNG requires significant coverage of the song in secondary and independent reliable sources. We do not have that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of refs in independent sources dealing specifically with the song rather than with the whole album, which suggests SIGCOV, but as said I'd not be unhappy with a redirect to the album. Ingratis (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think the article has anything that couldn't be worked into the album article. Wish it would have at least some chart performance to make it more relevant. Kirtap92 (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting on request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep significnt independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: There's a lot of coverage specific to the song [11][12][13][14][15], but it looks like all of it is routine coverage from the week of release in 2024. MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atibala

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Most of the detail is unsourced and possibly WP:OR (e.g. "He had been created by Ravana as a test-tube baby."). Only sourced detail "Atibala was a servant of Lanka king Ravana." can be added on Ravana page if it can be verified, but the current detail fails verification from the source - source says Atibala was Yama in form of a sannyasin. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Afzal Abbas

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

Biography of an Indianpolitical operative; fails WP:NPOL since he appears to have held only party offices, not public offices. Fails WP:GNG since there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent, reliable sources. This article is exclusively sourced to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (government documents, file photos, Twitter posts, etc.) and thus violates WP:NOR. Has been in and out of draftspace and had a PROD contested, so here were at AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matěj Havran

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

This Czech handball player (and casual MMA fighter?) does not currently meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, just stats pages, routine match coverage and coverage on non-independent sites affiliated with Czech handball. A redirect from another editor was contested, so bringing this to AfD. As an alternative to deletion I propose to redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team until such time as he meets NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic men's national handball team per nom. or else delete as lacking significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neon Heart Productions

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

This film production company fails WP:NCORP. The sources are all the organization's own website(s) (not independent), IMDb (WP:USERGENERATED), or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. In this article, and in my WP:BEFORE search, I found no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Dube

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

As a city councilor in a midsize Zimbabwean city, this subject does not qualify under WP:NPOL. I do not believe he qualifies under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO either, since the only substantial news coverage he received during his life (see VOA from my BEFORE search) is related to his 2013 assault, making it a case of WP:BIO1E. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE brief mentions in the context of his local elected office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Zimbabwe. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Benton

(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 significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, either in the article or through a search elsewhere. Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Alabama, Tennessee, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To-Fu: The Trials of Chi

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

Lack of demonstrated notability; only reliable sources found are reviews, with minimal significant coverage of note. Zero content in article outside of release info and review scores. Was last deleted as a draft in 2021 and revived in 2024 without being added into the WikiProject, with all edits being by the page creator. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are already 5 reviews from reliable WP:VG/RS sources on the article - Eurogamer, Jeuxvideo.com, MacLife, Pocket Gamer, and TouchArcade. These reviews definitely seem like significant coverage that demonstrates GNG - on Metacritic there are also reviews from Slide To Play, Multiplayer.it, and AppSpy. Waxworker (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Siy

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

Sources do not indicate sufficient notability. References to the subject of the article are fairly minor, mostly press releases and the like. Noleander (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Won't contest this one. I just came across the article and expanded it as I happened to know his work to a degree, but even I would agree that there is a lack of sources that ascertains the subject as notable for WP. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Sanderson

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

Non notable politician. No sigcov found. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and United Kingdom. (t · c) buidhe 01:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrematistics

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

An extremely obscure word appearing occasionally in Aristotle's work

Aristotle contrasts chresmatistics, which is the art of money-making, with economics, which is the art of household management in the Politics and in the Nicomachean Ethics. (Aristotle used the word 'techne' where I use the word 'art'.)

The term and category of chresmatistics is totally inessential to understanding Aristotle's views concerning which ways of acquiring wealth are legitimate and which illegitimate, or any other philosopher's views. And though the article may point out some real parallels between the criticism Marx and others made of capitalism, I don't think this very obscure Greek word has any real significance, and that any valuable content on this page should be merged to more frequently read general articles concerning philosophical critiques of capitalism, ancient ideas about economics, or into the articles of specific philosophers who developed Aristotle's ideas. Even then, I think that that material would be appropriate only if the later philosopher made this distinction between money-making and house-management a central element of their position. ForeverBetter (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biotic ethics

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

This article is a grab bag of topics only loosely related to one another, namely the ethics of space colonization, biocentrism in environmental ethics, and consequentialism. Each of these claims is entirely separable from the other two. An article on Bioethics already exists, making this an undesirable content fork. We should turn our attention to the Bioethics article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverBetter (talk • contribs) 22:02, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countryhumans

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject with no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has already been deleted once and coverage has not improved since then. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a very small internet subculture without notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just another semi-random internet fandom, no evidence of passing WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created this page as a redirect to personification, if we can't find much reliable sources, we should make make it a redirect again. Also, the russian wikipedia article for Countryhumans has sources we could use--Thegoofhere (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are scholary notes on Countryhumans in Russian. I don't speak Russian and I doubt you guys do. If we could get a Russo, that would be great Thegoofhere (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Santa Cruz, Laguna local elections

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

Previously tagged as potentially not notable, tag removed from author and author has previously challenged prior PRODs. Nominating other articles that are similar in lack of notability at this discussion. I have done searches on all of these, there is no significant or lasting coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me keep it clear. Why only those? Why is that the only thing you want to delete because it didn't reach Wikipedia Notability, Why? Does the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022 and 2025 Marilao local elections, are those reached the Wikipedia's notability to be an article? Those were the only half of the Local elections in the Philippines that's seems didn't reach the Wikipedia notability to be an Article. If you're really concerned, why would y'all questioned those page/s, not only mine, respectively. James100000 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I did not go through all of them. I had previously nominated those in Majayjay, so checked on the others. I found the Santa Cruz 2007 one through NPP. Those others can most likely be nominated, I can look for information on them tomorrow to see. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:03, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think for the better of the doubt instead of deleting those and this page/s, why would we just put the Template:more citations needed? I think that's the better we could do, because all of the Local Election pages in the Philippine politics weren't that important and whatever citations/references i put in the page/s i've created were that, I can't find anyone else, because that's how it is. Local elections are not getting much media attention, most of them are focused on the national election, respectively. James100000 (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not getting media attention, then it fails WP:GNG. We can't make election articles solely based on database entries. Our basis of creating articles is only if someone else wrote about it. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 2007_Santa_Cruz,_Laguna_local_elections to 2010 Laguna local elections, 2019 Majayjay local elections to 2019 Laguna local elections, and 2022 Majayjay local elections to 2022 Laguna local elections. If "Local elections are not getting much media attention", and our standard is WP:GNG, then at the very least the best that can be done is redirect this to provincial-level elections. Granted 2010 and 2019 election articles leave much to be desired, and perhaps it'll be hard to find WP:RS on 2010 elections now due to WP:LINKROT, but 2019 can still be done, and in 2025, Laguna has the most competitive gubernatorial race in the country. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RTP payload formats

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

This is nothing more than a list of citations to Requests for Comments. This is inappropriate since Wikipedia is not a directory or a catalog * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:39, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree this is acting primarily as a directory for something that is highly technical in nature. The existence of various payloads is already noted in the main RTP article. Users interested in more detail can find these sorts of listings from there. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Real-time Transport Protocol#Profiles and payload formats. MarioGom (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Saudi Arabia bus crash

AfDs for this article:

(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. All keep voters in the previous discussion erroneously cited news coverage as meeting GNG or made baseless arguments about death count. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Saudi Arabia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 San Martin Jilotepeque bus disaster

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a couple passing mentions in Spanish-language articles about other crashes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Guatemala. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Argentina road accident

(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. Just a random news story that fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage besides a passing mention in an article about a different crash. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Argentina. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on searches, while the event had a lot of international coverage meeting the standard of WP:DIVERSE, there was no enduring coverage meeting the standard of WP:PERSISTENCE, nor in-depth coverage of the incident for WP:INDEPTH. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]