Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< May 18 May 20 >

Purge server cache

Andreas Skotidas

[edit]
Andreas Skotidas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently in the article is Olympedia, which is not a IRS, and all I could find elsewhere were mentions. Let'srun (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automata in the Indian cultural imagination

[edit]
Automata in the Indian cultural imagination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No disrespect to the student editor Meerad247 who created this article for their UChicago Computation, Culture, and Society class, but this article seems built on out-of-scope material and pseudohistory. Its discussion of yantras confuses the term's alternative Sanskrit meaning of machine/contraption as indicating that these geometric diagrams somehow operate as automata. Its discussion of Tholpavakoothu and broader puppetry confuses the field's goal of mimicking life with actual automata. In comparison, the Robot article recognizes Japan's Karakuri puppet as actually mechanized, while the History of robots article recognizes Hero of Alexandria's creation of a mechanical puppet theater.

The extended claim that the Lokapannati legend describes robots guarding the Buddha's tomb, only for Ashoka to defeat them is troubling pseudohistory. The claim is sourced to an article from The Conversation, which in turn cites a 1901 article that makes no mention of such robots (JSTOR link). Given that Mayor's article refers to greater coverage in her 2018 book Gods and Robots, I did further digging. When she presents the story there, it is cited to Raimon Panikkar's 1984 article "The Destiny of Technological Civilization: An Ancient Buddhist Legend Romavisaya" which opens by warning "I shall offer an interpretation of this story which the medievals might have called allegorico-anagogical: I shall consider this text of the past in the context of the present. I shall not make this paper heavy with footnotes or with hermeneutical 'praenotanda' to justify this interpretation." Scholarly recognition that Panikkar's article is WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE includes the 2017 book chapter "Panikkar's Quest for an Alternative Way of Thinking and Acting," which frames that 1984 article as a fringe attempt to treat technology as a Western advancement that poses future danger.

Generally, this article has an awkward title that would be better changed to "Robots in Indian culture" if kept as no other article begins with "Automata in ..." and "Indian cultural imagination" is needlessly wordy. For now, deletion seems warranted over focusing on appropriate inclusions like the 2010 movie Enthiran because until sources are presented to show reliable sources recognizing the robots in Indian culture as a distinct topic, such entries would be better covered by Robots in literature and Science fiction film#Robots. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 22:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aminu Abdallah

[edit]
Aminu Abdallah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Made 30 appearances in his career for Championship teams before disappearing from the sport. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard D. Myles, Sr.

[edit]
Richard D. Myles, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unusual AfD because it rests on one typical and one unusual rationale:

  • The typical rationale: there is no significant coverage of him standalone from Minor Football League, which does have significant coverage. The material available could be selectively merged, though I notice the sources are promotional and do not establish notability.
  • The unusual rationale: his claims of attending Arizona State or playing for the Patriots do not verify. The all-time ASU football roster does not list him, nor is he mentioned in any Arizona newspapers of the 1970s—nor is he in any NFL draft listings I can find on Wikipedia or other sources or in NFL records. The earliest mention I can see of either claim is a 1998 article in The Washington Post. I am fairly sure this is a fabricated biography (which he has used since the 1990s). Sammi Brie (she/her · t c) 22:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the article, I appreciate the point raised by Sammi Brie. I was not aware that the claims regarding his football background had been circulating unverified for so long. In hindsight, the information I found was not accurate or reliable enough to support a standalone biography, and I agree that deletion is the best course given the current evidence.

James Noble (computer scientist)

[edit]
James Noble (computer scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published article; notability not established Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Oaktree b can you have a look at his https://sites.google.com/aito.org/home/aito-dahl-nygaard/2016-winners GS profile] for re-evaluation, he seems clearly notable in my book. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need a ton more sourcing than that, we still need sources that talk about the person Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is clearly not a hoax which some WP:BEFORE shows. The GS profile shows an respectable h index of 57 which is way above our usual threshold and more than 20 papers with 100+ citations, thus satisfying WP:NPROF#1. Plus he also won the Dahl-Nygaard Prize contributing to WP:NPROF#2 - overall I see a profile that is substantially stronger than most other AfD candidates that end up being kept and I cannot follow the arguments for deletion here. --hroest 01:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person does not attain notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). His racist (see 2022 deletion) views in themselves are not relevant but they illustrate the use he is making of this article for promotion of political views. This is confirmed by his edit today at Waitangi Tribunal, where his edit cannot be attributed to ignorance or a good faith error, due to his background in academia. The one secondary source provided is of low quality and focuses on only one event, in 2016. Even if accepted as a genuine RSS, because it is only one event, he is not deemed notable. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Sciences Course

[edit]
Molecular Sciences Course (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page on a single undergraduate class, translated from the pt-wiki. There is nothing notable about this class, the page is just an extended description without any coverage from what I can see. This is not what (the english) Wikipedia is for, class information can go on Facebook, LinkedIn or similar. The page should probably have been draftified, but missed the 90 day window. Deletion seems appropriate, as I do not see how this can possibly be edited to pass any of the english WP notability criteria. (Possible COI as well, but that is not the deciding factor.) Ldm1954 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing to meet WP:GNG. It's possible that a single college or university could be independently notable. But I expect that is quite rare and in any case the claim needs to be supported by reliable, independent sources just like every other article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yankee Town, Indiana

[edit]
Yankee Town, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A complete nothing-place about which I could find nothing. Note that there is also a Yankeetown, Indiana which is an actual town and which helps confuse searching. Mangoe (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraro

[edit]
Shiraro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub, cannot find any sources talking about the topic of this article that are not copied from Wikipedia

(Most of the results for “Shiraro” on search engines and journal databases seem to be about places called “Shiraro” rather than any leather material. But even the places may not be notable enough for an article.) ApexParagon (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 46th Canadian federal election

[edit]
Opinion polling for the 46th Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an opinion poll that is not yet discussed in reliable sources (can't really think whether the two sources at the associated draft is reliable enough). It was prodded, but I objected the prod since I believed it was invalid despite the endorsement. Note that the most recent election wrapped up just three weeks ago so I felt that this article with almost no documentation in reliable sources is way too soon. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has no references and is just a small table. Google News is a dead end full of WP:SIGCOV violations. This could be a case of WP:SOON or it could just fail WP:GNG. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article was created despite there already being concensus that it should currently be in the draft-space. This article shouldn't exist -- it is too soon for it to be moved out of the draft space, and a draft with the same title already exists. The two sources used in the draft are absolutely reliable -- they are from Nanos polling, a large Canadian pollster, so it is clear that the original nominator for deletion in this article is unaware of Canadian politics. ArchMonth (talk) 17:44, May 19, 2025 (EST)

Oruvattam Koodi

[edit]
Oruvattam Koodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable reviews, poster release is not significant. No significant coverage, other than what is on the page, there is nothing online especially in English. Redirect to Chillu#Soundtrack, which has a song of the same name. DareshMohan (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trap Lore Ross

[edit]
Trap Lore Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obviously AI generated article not in encyclopedic tone. It reads very promotional and puffery. Subject might be notable, but this is not an acceptable article. RoseCherry64 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the main editors contributions, I see several good articles and even a featured article. Yet, this really reads to me like an obvious example of AI generated text which confuses me. I don't want to accuse a productive and experienced editor of using AI, so I really apologize if that's not the case. Sources are pretty poor and some seem entirely unrelated to the text it describes, like the opinion piece from Defector describing him highly negatively used as a reference on the sentence "His content often delves into the real-life events and legal troubles of musicians, presenting a blend of music journalism and cultural commentary." RoseCherry64 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am really not even sure how to address this tbh, but no, it is not AI written. I use grammarly often to sort out better sentences structure. In your defence, someone once told that only AI uses the word "delve". Feel free to check the factuality for each sentence using the inline sources, so you can be sure that: The article does not include hallucinated information or fictitious references. As for copyright violation, use Earwig.
Anyway, AfD are normally based on policies, so you need to indicate in your nom the policy that you think this article is violating. Have a read through Wikipedia:Deletion policy and if you change your mind, you can withdraw the nom.
Also please when you tag an article, it is better to add more details in the page talk so editors know what to fix. Good luck FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the above, and while I will believe you on not writing the entire article with AI, it has the exact same non-encyclopedic tone of AI. If I would ask a LLM to write an article, I would get an indistinguishable result in prose. I do believe the article contains citations that do not match the actual sentences. Another example is the sentence "He also delves into the evolution of hip-hop culture, and the intricate relationships between rap music and broader societal issues" is completely unrelated to the two citations, one which seems to just be a page with an embedded video? If he has covered the evolution of hip-hop culture, the source does not explain it.
I did not explicitly link anything but my reason for nomination is WP:ATD-E "If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion". I am not arguing against the notability about this person, only that the quality of the article is so poor that it's not worth keeping in this state, especially considering it's a biography of a living person. RoseCherry64 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just passing by, but Grammarly uses AI now so that is likely why it might appear AI-generated. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see GNG, source 2 is a RS, it mentions the person... 5 and 7 are the only other RS, that briefly mention this person, mostly re-quoting TMZ or talking about a documentary this person made. I can't find any sources either, these are all TMZ or other gossip sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International charter for walking

[edit]
International charter for walking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG not enough reliable independent coverage of the subject SapphicVibes (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen D. Martin

[edit]
Stephen D. Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Regarding his medical career, scopus shows 9 publications with an H-index of 9, with most of the citations coming from mid-authorship papers. For example, on his most highly-cited paper (Meltzer et al., 2003) he is one of 88 authors, and is listed only in the trialist, not in the main authors (checking the pdf). Visiting professorship at the University of Sunderland in the 90s doesn't meet the 'named chair' criterion. Other outputs seem typical for a typical academic in the humanities. LTLC flute is very impressive, but performance interpretation/outputs are supported only with self-citations. Klbrain (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Commons

[edit]
Tales of Commons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a redirect, blown up to article size--but the supplied links are basically all company sources and manuals, and I cannot find any secondary sources either. A redirect to Tales of Mobile is the proper solution. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • As said earlier, I do not see the need for deletion when the alternative, Tales of Mobile, is empty and mostly bland, offering no informations whatsoever. I followed closely the formats of other Tales games, adding references, links and everything. A lot of game pages (especially for old i-mode games like this) could realistically fit into a main page, Xenosaga Pied Piper could be deleted and just be a passing mention on the main Xenosaga article, BCFFVII could be deleted and just have its content in the "Compilation of Final Fantasy VII" article. Both of those coexist with one another and with no problems with the dedicated page adding on to what is missing on the other ones. As for links, I do not see the problem when pages like Tales of the World: Summoner's Lineage which has no external link except a simple blog, no references, no nothing and yet this page is still allowed to exist despite being less well put together than Tales of Commons which properly source everything and uses different websites rather than just sticking to the same. Leptitgay (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references from the corresponding Japanese article. Bandai Namco has changed its web domain. I couldn't find Tales of Commons on the https://www.bandainamcoent.com/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luizinho (footballer, born 1987)

[edit]
Luizinho (footballer, born 1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even after a WP:BEFORE I couldn't find anything about the player, who had spells at Fluminense and FC Penafiel and is a youth international. Even so, fails in lack WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dasey

[edit]
Jason Dasey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

That's biograme is merely sourced, it's known that he works as journalist that's all there no reasons for meeting notability guidelines The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fredericksburg Theater Company

[edit]
Fredericksburg Theater Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't meet WP:GNG not enough sources independent of the subject nor is there significant coverage of any sort SapphicVibes (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalvøya, Bærum

[edit]
Kalvøya, Bærum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can’t find any reliable secondary sources covering this city. Not entirely sure where to redirect it since the Bærum article doesn’t mention it ApexParagon (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LNCT University

[edit]
LNCT University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing here. No sources to establish notability. I also did a google search for the subject, and there are barely any sources that are independent and not mere trivial mentions. Would suggest deletion Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freeky

[edit]
Freeky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable single (song). It can be redirected to Ai Otsuka per WP:ATD. Mekomo (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers

[edit]
List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this meets WP:NLIST, not clear that any other reliable source has paid attention to a grouping of these different levels of politicial entities, seems rather random. Also seems in many parts incorrect, many of these are apparently neither continents, countries, nor first level subdivisions (e.g. Røsvatnet or Gil Island (Canada) or Replot). Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Fram (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists. Deleting this will just leave a hole of this size in the middle of the lists into which it is transcluded. Of course, listing of geographic features by size is very well-established, and this specific division is just a convenient subset of the entire list. With respect to the concern that there are items on the list that should not be there, feel free to remove those. There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities. There are more than enough countries and first level subdivisions to fill up the list. BD2412 T 15:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This is a transcluded subset of a larger lists." No, this is an article. Whether another list transcludes this or not is an issue for that list, not for AfD. This article here and now is directly readable by readers, it is categorized, it should meet our criteria for an article. "listing of geographic features by size is very well-established" across some randomly decided characteristics? I don't think so. A list of countries by size is not a problem and wouldn't be at AfD, what is at AfD (and can't be helped by cleanup) is this combination of (officially) continents, countries, and "first level subdivisions", and (in practice) everything else that someone wants to add (and that apparently not only pollutes not just this page then, but also all these other pages this is transcluded onto). Do you have any evidence of other reliable sources treating these three levels together in one list by size like this one, or is this a Wikipedia invention? Fram (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are at least 200,000 islands in the world, and it seems obvious that we should not be listing all of those here if they are not their own administrative entities That seems to be the case for a substantial amount of this list, though, there are a lot of Canadian islands here, and the two lists below have nearly 300 Scottish islands. These lists could be more meaningful if they don't attempt to – yet obviously fail badly – be so comprehensive. Reywas92Talk 16:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Reywas92: If there is not an objection to listing countries and their states/provinces, then removing the smaller islands is a cleanup task. The larger islands tend to be their own administrative divisions. BD2412 T 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't believe this meets the criteria for a speedy keep. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP is not a speedy keep criterion. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can read it as a "strong keep", then, but if a subset of a an uncontested series of lists is deleted because that subset is deemed not individually notable, then it would pretty much automatically be merged up to the larger list, which has not been nominated for deletion here. That would just be clean up and merge. BD2412 T 22:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added these two because their Prod was removed, and for the same reasons. Fram (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 1 square kilometer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area under 50 square kilometers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete (all). This is such a random WP:CROSSCAT of things, that it's difficult to tell what should even be included or excluded. I see some silly micronation on the small end, as well as a department of France, which appears to be second-level, not first, along with random islands and full nations. Why are such things combined together? It's even bad enough if you try to restrict to only first-level subdivisions, as these are rather different entities from nation to nation. This is exactly the sort of dreck that NLIST, CROSSCAT, etc., should be used to weed out. And make no mistake, there's nothing all that special about sorting by area. We could also do it by population, by number of roads, or total jellybean exports. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have such lists for population or jellybean exports because those are far less stable. If they were unchanging, it would make sense to have lists. BD2412 T 22:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rubal Thakur

[edit]
Rubal Thakur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all notability criteria. Mekomo (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twoblade

[edit]
Twoblade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about something of dubious notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]
Chief Executive Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG; Google search doesn't find any reliable in-depth secondary sources; only source on the article is primary loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Organizations. loserhead (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added sources Guylaen (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that anyone can nominate, but because you don't have a user page, and this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm slightly suspicious of your intentions here in nominating this article for deletion. I do not mean to be accusatory in my nature here, I'm just a little confused. This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Also, I realize my mistake in not adding a Wikipedia:Stub tag before. I've added that now to the page. I usually remember to do that. Guylaen (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guylaen
    you don't have a user page A userpage is optional, and that shouldn't make me (or anyone) suspicious or anything like that; see Trappist the monk and they are an administrator.
    this content has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation Just the fact that something has to do with the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't make it important or notable, AFAIK.
    This is a highly notable position, and it's super easy to find information on Google. Current or former people holding this title may be notable, but I haven't seen any INDEPTH sources on the title itself.
    Also please note that I don't know everything there is to know about Wikipedia and its policies so if I made a mistake please inform me. loserhead (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in either case, I've now listed more sources on this page than there are on List of leaders of Ford Motor Company. Guylaen (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would highly encourage you to please read bullet "C-2" at WP:BEFORE: "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article."
    I literally only made the page six days ago. That's less than a week. I was going to properly build out this page a little more, but I got completely sidetracked by Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month 2025. I just kind of fell down a Ukraine rabbit hole. I have the same problem that most other writers here have: so little time, and so many articles.
    Also, I literally have a final due tonight, and I have to go meet Leon Panetta again at noon. I would be looking forward to it, but I think I have a hernia and I've probably got GERD and I feel like crap. Anyways.
    The problem in searching for a term like "CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation" is that in that most cases, the position itself is not the primary subject of a news story, but the person who holds the position, or the person who is doing something while they hold that position. So, yes, of course you're going to find mostly articles about the people. And by the rules, that's actually fine.
    However, there are sources - you just have to muddle yourself through the internet to find them. Guylaen (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not because the sources don't exist, but in this case it is the Parallax effect: the individual CEO's loom far larger than the position of CEO. Guylaen (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Yi

[edit]
Ho Yi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little established notability; sparse amount of sources available online or offline while article used to have iMDb as most sources. Subject edited own article, which has not been properly maintained to denote his significance and notability to be kept as an article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Ng, Hung 吳雄 (2015-07-14). "中學念本地左校 黃浩義香港經歷文革" [Attended Local Leftist School in Secondary School: Wong Ho-yee Experienced Cultural Revolution in Hong Kong]. Hong Kong Economic Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-05-04. Retrieved 2025-05-04.

      The article notes: "香港「舞台劇之父」黃浩義長居上海，偶而回港為這片鄉土澆上一瓢清泉，其中一瓢是2013年8月拍成的電影《紅色的迴廊》（Red Passage）。奈何劇本早在2009年已寫好，先遇上資金、取景的困難，後遇上政治熱帶氣旋帶來的狂風暴雨，至今未有發行商願意放映。 ... 片中男主角從官校轉到左校，他就是黃浩義本人。... 結果，黃浩義去另一地方拍英國旗再把畫面合併。雖然拍攝在暑假進行，但傳媒竟找上門拜訪他。... 政治改變思想，思想改變命運，黃浩義中三就轉校，開涼茶舖的父親總算及時轉軚，才有了今天的舞台劇之父。"

      From Google Translate: "Hong Kong's 'Father of Stage Play' Wong Ho Yi has lived in Shanghai for a long time. He occasionally returns to Hong Kong to bring some fresh air to his hometown. One of his contributions was the movie 'Red Passage' which was made in August 2013. Unfortunately, the script was written as early as 2009, but it first encountered difficulties in funding and location selection, and then encountered the storm brought by the political tropical cyclone. So far, no distributor is willing to screen it. ... The protagonist in the film transferred from the official school to the left school, and he was Wong Ho Yi himself. ... As a result, Wong Ho Yi went to another place to take pictures of the British flag and then merged the images. Although the filming took place during the summer vacation, the media came to visit him. ... Politics changes thoughts, thoughts change destiny. Wong Ho Yi changed schools in Form 3, and his father, who ran a herbal tea shop, finally changed his mind in time, and he became the father of stage plays today."

    2. Dong, Jin 董進 (2013-04-28). "香港舞台劇之父開創無厘頭風格 后被周星馳借鑒" [Father of Hong Kong Stage Drama Pioneered Absurdist Style, Later Borrowed by Stephen Chow]. Chongqing Morning Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-11-10. Retrieved 2025-05-04 – via People's Daily.

      The article notes: "黃浩義1983年在港創辦香港青年劇團，成為第一代專業搞戲劇的。... 作為導演，黃浩義執導了不少優秀的舞台劇，而作為演員，黃浩義除了參演眾多港台劇，還在多部好萊塢電影中擔任角色，與布拉德·彼特(《間諜游戲》)、皮爾斯·布魯斯南（《007之擇日而亡》）都對過戲。聊起在好萊塢拍戲經歷，黃浩義很有感觸。"

      From Google Translate: "Wong founded the Hong Kong Youth Theater Company in Hong Kong in 1983, becoming the first generation of professional theater practitioners. ... As a director, Wong has directed many outstanding stage plays, and as an actor, Wong has appeared in many Hong Kong and Taiwan dramas, and has also played roles in several Hollywood films, starring with Brad Pitt ("Spy Game") and Pierce Brosnan ("007's Death"). When he talked about his experience of filming in Hollywood, Wong was very touched."

    3. Sek, Kei 石琪 (2019-11-17). "粗口和紅色迴廊" [Profanity and the Red Corridor]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. S5.

      The article notes: "大家於是提及香港劇場，卅多年前最早把粗口引進「大雅之堂」，開路先鋒是黃浩義，一九八六年把美國著名粗口劇《美國水牛》翻譯演出，改名《鉤心鬥角》，台上猛講粵語粗口，大受青年學生歡迎，紛紛起哄，創下場場數特多的紀錄。... 黃浩義在香港劇壇的創舉不少，移居英國及上海也在演藝界創造一些先例。其實二○一四年他自編自導了一部很特別的香港獨立片《紅色的迴廊》，以他本身的少年經歷，描述七十年代初一個男生，因父親愛國，送他入香港左派中學，該校追隨大陸文革作風，念《毛語錄》，忠字舞，批批跳鬥，很「恐怖」。"

      From Google Translate: "Everyone then mentioned Hong Kong theatre, which was the first to introduce swear words into the "classical arena" more than 30 years ago. The pioneer was Wong Ho Yi, who translated and performed the famous American swear play "American Buffalo" in 1986, renamed it "Intrigue", and used Cantonese swear words on stage, which was very popular among young students. They all cheered and set a record for the number of performances. ... Wong Hoyi has made many innovations in the Hong Kong theatre scene, and his move to the UK and Shanghai also created some precedents in the entertainment industry. In fact, in 2014, he wrote and directed a very special Hong Kong independent film "Red Corridor", which was based on his own teenage experience and described a boy in the early 1970s who was sent to a leftist middle school in Hong Kong because of his patriotic father. The school followed the style of the Cultural Revolution in mainland China, reading "Quotations from Chairman Mao", doing the loyalty dance, and dancing criticisms. It was very "scary"."

    4. Sek, Kei 石琪 (2014-11-15). "入讀左校的日子" [The Days of Enrolling in the Leftist School]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. D5.

      The article notes: "在「香港亞洲影展」看了黃浩義自編自導自製新片《紅色的迴廊》。黃浩義是本港資深話劇人，最具爭議性是廿多年前自導自演《勾心鬥角》，即美國著名粗口劇《美國水牛》的粵語版，大講粵語粗口，多次重演都滿座，成為本港舞台爆粗的先驅。隨後他的獨立電影《雷雨》改編曹禺名劇，涉及性問題也有爭議，但票房失利。"

      From Google Translate: "I watched the new film "Red Corridor" written, directed and produced by Wong Hoyi at the "Hong Kong Asian Film Festival". Wong Hoyi is a senior dramatist in Hong Kong. His most controversial work is "Intrigue" which he directed and starred in more than 20 years ago. It is the Cantonese version of the famous American foul-mouthed play "American Buffalo". He used a lot of Cantonese foul language and the theaters were always full during many re-performances, making him a pioneer of swearing on the Hong Kong stage. His subsequent independent film Thunderstorm, adapted from Cao Yu's famous play, also controversially dealt with sexual issues, but failed at the box office."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wong Ho Yi (traditional Chinese: 黃浩義; simplified Chinese: 黄浩义) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per sources provided by Cunard; hopefully these references can be placed in the article during or following the discussion as right now there are still quite a few unreferenced passages. -- Reconrabbit 17:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Della Valle

[edit]
Andrea Della Valle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of wp:SIGCOV and fails Wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. One more business man who tells us what he has, but not how he got there. Honorary degree, honorary citizenship. He's a billionaire and "vice-chairman of the Tod's Group, of which his brother Diego Della Valle is chairman." So what? — Maile (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loyola Jesuit College

[edit]
Loyola Jesuit College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to lack WP:SIGCOV and has had WP:PROMO edits. In WP:BEFORE did not find reliable sources such that WP:GNG fails here. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Amberg

[edit]
Franz Amberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO. City Clerk of Chicago is not an office which confers inherent notability (nor is penitentiary commissioner, another office he appears to have held). Search turns up some mentions of his name but no significant coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies if I've put this in the wrong place: Amberg was an elected official whose office (City Clerk of Chicago) has a Wikipedia page with numerous officeholders' biographies included on Wikipedia. City Clerk of Chicago was and remains notable, hence many holders of this office have Wikipedia biographies and the office has its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldlyVoice (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Gunter

[edit]
Albert Gunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As genuinely cool and entertaining as the bus-jumping incident is, this seems like a clear WP:1E fail. — Moriwen (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t this fall under the “ if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.” Because of its relation to the much larger tower bridge article it is mentioned in where it is basically only a line there and if you want to learn more you click on him and find out more
I have tried finding out about his time in the war but could not find the records as I didn't have access to the archives because I couldn’t find any that wasn’t they were behind a pay wall Jack Smart (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse breathing

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Reverse breathing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient on-point (specifically WP:MEDRS) sources to establish notability for a standalone article. Brief mention may be due elsewhere (Qigong?) Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 12 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 14:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Scantlebury

[edit]
Alisa Scantlebury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCRIC as Barbados cricket team is not a Test playing nation and also not enough in depth coverage for a WP:GNG pass. RoboCric Let's chat 14:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles–Packers rivalry

[edit]
Eagles–Packers rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have thought about this one for a while, and after that time, I do not see it meeting our notability guidelines. Consider:

  • The only standalone notable games between the two is 4th and 26 and 1960 NFL Championship Game.
  • They have only played each 48 times over 90 years and have never been in the same division.
  • They have only played each other in the playoffs four times, with one of those happening just a month ago.
  • A review of relevant sources does not show sustained use of the term "rivalry" to define the Packers and Eagles playing against each other (outside of local fluff pieces, like this), even though they have been doing so for 90 years. Even playing against each other in high profile, recent games (like in Brazil and this year's playoff game), there is not much, if any, discussion on this being a true rivalry, above the normal interactions that two teams have against each other in the NFL.

The Packers are an old franchise and have many rivalries, but all of their rivalries meet at least one of the four bullets above. For those reasons, I believe deletion is justified now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not an expert on NFL rivalries and have tons of respect for Gonzo's knowlege of Packers history. FWIW, a quick search did turn up "Historically, Green Bay has had edge", a full page review of the rivalry's history. See also here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I struggle with both this one and the Packers/Rams (they have played each other 100 times!). My main challenge is at some point a line has to be drawn, or the Packers will have rivalry page with every NFC team (maybe they should, idk). The Bucs were in the Packers division for years, the Cowboys/49ers/Seahawks all have a lot of notable moments, especially in the playoffs. I think I remember watching Week 1 last year (the Brazil Packers/Eagles game) and one commentator noted for two teams who have existed for so long, its surprising they don't have a stronger history. Idk, either way I won't be beat up about the result. Just trying to find the line in the sand on where a "long-term match-up" transitions to a "full rivalry". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. In the college context, it's similar to Notre Dame or Alabama where we have ten rivalry articles for each program, in part because of the long history and legendary status of the programs. Cbl62 (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Wikina

[edit]
Ebenezer Wikina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources made up of interview, primary source and passing mentions thereby failing WP:GNG Mekomo (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - Fails WP:JOURNALIST and no secondary sources. --ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG King ChristLike (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Carpet (software)

[edit]
Red Carpet (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F6 disk

[edit]
F6 disk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bule Hora University

[edit]
Bule Hora University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Refs are all database sites. BEFORE turned up one short news article on protests at the university. Article would be a stub if not for filler like "teaches normal subjects", "has a campus", "has an online portal", "is top 30 in Ethiopia" (ranked #27/35?) REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 09:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ramos1990, even if it technically passes notability guidelines, I think it'd be better off as part of the town article until more reliable secondary sources are found
(Note: I also had to remove a lot of content from the university section on the town article due to much of it being irrelevant or unverifiable. It's better now.) ApexParagon (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Barbara Micarelli School

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mother Barbara Micarelli School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG due to the absence of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, lack of citations, and directory-only content. Scoria (talk) 08:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is totally unnecessary Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate Colina

[edit]
Mate Colina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently never played a game in the AFL.[2] Clarityfiend (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that's now irrelevant. What's your relevant reason for deletion? The-Pope (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angadveer Surendranath

[edit]
Angadveer Surendranath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article nearly based on ETBrandEquity.com. His contributions to films Race 3 and 83 are as a second unit or assistant director, roles that typically do not confer notability per WP:NBIO. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was moved to Bengali LGBTQ literature and subsequently G11'd‎. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali LGBTQ Literature

[edit]
Bengali LGBTQ Literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content fails to show notable impact, or significant RS attention, and does not meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG and I think it fulfill WP:A7. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : see deletion log of this article under A7[3]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it really fits A7, if I'm being honest. A7 only covers people, animals, organizations, web content, or an event. This covers a literature genre, which doesn't fit cleanly under any of those topics.
    As far as the topic's notability goes, I think that there's a high chance that the topic of Bengali LGBTQ literature is likely notable. However part of the issue is that coverage is likely not going to be heavily in English, making it difficult for people not fluent to search. Another issue is that the term "Bengali" can refer to either people of Bangladesh or people of West Bengal in India. This would make searching a bit more odd for those of us who aren't as savvy with the terminology and what exactly to look for.
    In other words, there's no clear, easy parent article to merge into. It doesn't really fit cleanly into either the article on homosexuality in India nor would it fit into a comparable article on Bangladesh, if it existed. But it does seem clear that the topic is notable per coverage like this, where it covers an author who would fall under the banner of a Bengali LGBT author given that he is from a city in West Bengal and wrote heavily on the topic.
    So I think the two things here is this - it's not an A7 candidate and the topic does give off the impression of notability, so I think it would be better to try to improve it - we just need someone who is fluent in Bengali and/or one of the other local languages to search. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference if there were someone willing to create it, would be for this to be covered in a larger article about homosexuality and the Bengali people. But I don't have the time to create it, so I'm writing here in hopes someone else wants to make that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue in withdrawing if someone improve this article. Regards. Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Shaping Seattle: Buildings

[edit]
Shaping Seattle: Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local government website. PROD previously declined with a suggestion to merge the content somewhere, but there's no clear place to merge it to -- there's no article for Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections (the agency that runs the website) and it would be WP:UNDUE in the main Seattle or even Government and politics of Seattle articles. Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the existing references appear to pass GNG, with the King5, GeekWire, and WaPo sites. Have you been able to access and review these? Linkrot appears to have claimed one, and another is paywalled for me. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington Post article has two sentences: Seattle, though, has already built a platform tracking new real-estate projects that hints at what could be possible. Projects that have to go through a design review are all mapped by the city here, with each one linked to a timeline, images and public documents. Not exactly WP:SIGCOV. King 5, KPLU, and CityLab are all just regurgitating the press release announcing the website, which also doesn't count towards notability. GeekWire is the only one that comes close, but that article is much more about Seattle in Progress than Shaping Seattle. I haven't been able to find anything else that counts towards notability either, with all of the coverage just being "hey, this exists" regurgitations of the press release from 2015 -- nothing from the decade since then. Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CouponBirds

[edit]
CouponBirds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References do not pass WP:SIRS, so this does not pass WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Computing, and Internet. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "businessing" looks like a vanity 'interview' site which advertised paid placement and guest/sponsored posting. 'dailymail' is a depreciated source and the other remaining media sources are simply noting survey results and other content marketing from the company. A large amount of SEO/PR and other paid placement was removed from the article before it was moved to articlespace by the declared paid creator. I was not able to find any reliable sources specific to the company in a search. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources used are not substantial (App Store, Microsoft Edge Addons, Chrome Web Store, LSU Financial Aid, "Favorite Chrome extensions"), are not more than trivial mentions (The Guardian, CBS News), are not independent of the company (Businessing Magazine), or are published by unreliable or questionable sources (International Scholarships Search, Mail Online, Newsweek). I did some searching but did not find much - this company's reports are cited often, but only by articles that list the "top 50 CostCo snacks", etc. Not in-depth coverage. -- Reconrabbit 18:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMO, promotional article. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Chasi Kalyan Samiti

[edit]
Bangladesh Chasi Kalyan Samiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable NGO. Otherthan some passing mentions, there is zero significant coverage about this NGO. Also, all the sources mentioned talks about it’s parents organisations Bangladesh Jamaate Islami. Notability isn’t inherited. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passing mentions? To you even in-depth sources are passing mentions i have seen, it can mention Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, what's the problem, the topic is indeed covered, read WP:Before and it clearly passes WP:GNG BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not even 2 months old, give me some time to improve the page and rest alright? BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This only source might be somewhat significant coverage. Other than that, there is zero significant coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources for this organization to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Please show me three best sources that provide significant coverage, are reliable, and independent of the subject, I will withdraw my nomination. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its best that you apply WP:B before you nominate articles for AfD, recently i set a limit where I have to make each of my articles pass WP:GNG in atleast 15 months if sources are found, now this article i was still checking on to see if it passes Wikipedia policies, you used to nominate several of my articles for deletion, some actually made sense because many were just passing mentions (here) but slowly the quality of reasons of your AfDs have been decreasing, just my opinion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that meet notability? Please check the article or these are the sources for you, here, here, here, you can check other sources in the page too, if you want proof that the publishers are reliable then, see this. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure why you think I didn’t check before nominating. I’m sorry, but the three sources you provided is not significant coverage.
With this, I cannot say that the organization meets the criteria of WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't passing mentions only mention the name and nothing else about the subject? Example: She worked here, and there is no other information, following sources do provide information, after taking a semi-break from November to December 2024 from Wikipedia, i returned in 2025 and i check each article i am trying to make and i do not try to add passing mentions, i try to add in-depth sources, also can i give a recommendation, it would be nice if you looked for sources yourself online or offline, I as the author here created this article but I cannot always add information, I also have school, assignments, homework, exams, it would be nice if others contribute before nominating it for AfD. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One or two lines in a news article do not constitute significant coverage. I looked online, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any substantial coverage about this organization. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The given sources i have showed do not include only 1 or two lines, not all sources will have the chosen headline, information can be spread out and if it does give information and in-depth, i think its okay. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s clear that we do not agree on the sources and it's WP:SIGCOV. I’ll leave it to others to judge. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but others should give a clear reason, saying delete per nom is not enough and violates purpose and instructions under a AfD, Swamping delete votes without a proper reason especially when the article has been nominated without passing WP:Before is not applicable. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even after the AfD, I am looking for sources both online and offline through multiple browsers, apps, and asking from newspaper circulators or authors of reports. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 10:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop saying "the article has been nominated without passing WP:Before"? As I said above, I looked online, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any substantial coverage about this organization. It’s good that you added more sources, but please note that all of them are just passing mentions/one sentence. E.g.

-- আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Any problem? From your replies, i got the information that you should've done a WP:Before before the AfD, during the AfD may cause issues because the nominator may have a bias against the given sources, plus no its not one sentence, There are atleast a few passing mentions but more than 4 sources are in-depth about the organization, not all sources will be like 190 pages about the organization, it gives the needed information, i can nominate several pages of yours by applying your very own comment, saying that oh only "passing mention", " sources don't mention much, only 2 sentences" length of the supported text in the sources as long as it is enough for SIGCOV and in-depth coverage, is okay, it can cover a topic about some other event, that doesn't decrease its reliability. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added several in-depth sources which are already in the page and some passing mentions too, length of the supported text doesn't have to be a full book, just enough to establish SIGCOV and in-depth coverage. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial comment says it doesn't pass SIGCOV and sources talk about Jamaat, what's the problem here? We have already commented on SIGCOV but on Jamaat, it doesn't matter if sources talk about Jamaat-e-Islami and then Chasi Kalyan Samiti, after all, Chasi Kalyan Samiti is the peasant wing of Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, the source can mention its parent organization, your initial comment failed to prove how it is insufficient. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uni Abex

[edit]
Uni Abex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks Notability. Sources are either primary or in the form of press releases. There is promotional intent too. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I see no reason that this "lacks notability". The current state of the article is poor and needs better sourcing, per WP:V, but that's not the same thing. Clearly this company exists, has existed for a long time, and is substantial (market cap of >500 Crore / £4B). Given that the article was only created today, I'm in no rush to delete it on such a weak basis. Editors are always welcome to do some of the legwork here and help to expand coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply existing or existing for a long time does not automatically mean that a subject is notable. A market cap of >£4b - while quite large and impressive, does not signify coverage in reliable, secondary sources, although it is expected that there would be such. Unless further sources are presented, there is no real reason to believe that the subject is notable by means of WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references provided in the article, are company's biography or 'Self Published'. I can not see any substantial coverage that satisfies GNG criteria. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Needs to go back to draft to see if it can be improved. Sourcing looks weak and needs wider coverage, if it is be seen as notable. Currently reads like an employee wrote it. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Arya

[edit]
Mukul Arya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG and all the sources provided are dead links Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T. Frederick Candlyn

[edit]
T. Frederick Candlyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organist and choirmaster. No significant coverage in secondary sources and I don't see how his role at St Thomas Episcopal makes him automatically notable.

Worth mentioning that even within the limited category of organists who took an external music degree at Durham University, Candlyn does not compare that well to others e.g. I don't think he was ever a Fellow of the Royal College of Organists, a full professor of music, or the recipient of a government award (like Order of the British Empire, or an American equivalent) Leonstojka (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Sultan Midani

[edit]
Walid Sultan Midani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a game designer and businessperson, and added an interview. The current references are two interviews, a non-independent source which mentions him in passing (fi.co), a deadlink and a site which doesn't mention this person. I cannot find more to add, although I may be missing coverage in other languages. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autoship CAD/CAM

[edit]
Autoship CAD/CAM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and has a severe lack of any WP:SIGCOV on the software. Only mentions I could find are not independent or are just passing mentions. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Khan Chowdhury

[edit]
Ahsan Khan Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:GNG. References are mostly routine business announcements, with insufficient independent in-depth secondary source coverage to establish notability beyond his corporate roles at PRAN-RFL Group and Midland Bank PLC. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxycation

[edit]
Oxycation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources have been identified that make this topic notable. (Attempt at PROD was removed but no sources were added). Johnjbarton (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as this could be a set index or list article; and there are multiple independent sources that show this is notable: eg[1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Bractecki, A.; Dembicka, D. (January 1969). "Structure and properties of oxycations. IV. Spectroscopic studies on complex compounds with some organophosphorus ligands". Inorganica Chimica Acta. 3: 59–64. doi:10.1016/S0020-1693(00)92447-2.
  2. ^ Ortolano, T. R.; Selbin, J.; McGlynn, S. P. (1 July 1964). "Electronic Structure, Spectra, and Magnetic Properties of Oxycations. V. The Electronic Spectra of Some Vanadyl Complexes". The Journal of Chemical Physics. 41 (1): 262–268. doi:10.1063/1.1725631.
  3. ^ Barbosa, Luis Antonio M. M.; van Santen, Rutger A. (1 December 2003). "Study of the Activation of C−H and H−H Chemical Bonds by the [ZnOZn] 2+ Oxycation: Influence of the Zeolite Framework Geometry". The Journal of Physical Chemistry B. 107 (51): 14342–14349. doi:10.1021/jp030394r.
  4. ^ Madan, S.K.; Donohue, A.M. (May 1966). "Co-ordination compounds of oxycations thorium (IV) and molybdenum (V) with 2,2′-bipyridine-1,1′-dioxide". Journal of Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry. 28 (5): 1303–1311. doi:10.1016/0022-1902(66)80458-X.

Delete. Not a group with much of a presence in the chemical literature. Of the four references given by the anonymous editor immediately above, three are extremely old, and one is just old. No evidence that this is a notable classification (unlike, say, oxyanion). Athel cb (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly discussed in plenty of academic sources, as a look on Google Scholar shows. That many of such sources are old is irrelevant to notability; if obsolete then the concept needs to be historically discussed (such as cyclol, another obsolete chemical concept) but that's another matter.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:06, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Google scholar results only show the word being used. Do any of those articles discuss the nature of the concept? Its importance in chemistry? Its importance in history? The article does not have a single reference. We are all just assuming we know what the terms means: there is no way to check. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently there are papers having oxycations as a subject: [4], [5], [6], [7] for example (but there's more). cyclopiaspeak! 07:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet no editor considers the subject sufficiently notable to add sourced content to the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not understanding what your comment means. cyclopiaspeak! 14:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I was just frustrated by this discussion.
    Wikipedia has developed a set of guidelines called "notability" to determine what topics should be given full articles. For me the topic "oxycation" fails because we have no reliable sources about that topic, just a handful of hits in a search that use the adjective without defining or discussing its importance as a concept. We can't use these sources because they literally say nothing about the article's topic! Giving the list as evidence will prevent us from deleting this dumb, pointless article, but at the same time the sources cannot be used to fix the article. Frustrating.
    One of the "is not" items is Wikipedia is a dictionary. In this case we don't even have a source for a definition! In my opinion all we have is original research: editors are asserting without sources a definition of "oxycation." If you argue that the sources give us examples, then we are using synthesis to create the definition.
    I often rescue poorly cited topics by adding sources. This article however should be deleted. If we could find even one source then at least we could mention "oxycation" in ion, but we can't even do that.
    I hope this is clearer. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very aware of what notability is, I edit this wiki since 2004 :)
    About oxycations, I am confused by your comment becasue it's simply false that "they literally say nothing about the article's topic". They are article about oxycations, as the title plainly states, so they should contain information about the article's topic. Some of them also introduce the concept; see [8] for example: «Metal oxycations [...] dominate the chemistry of the early members of all three transition-metal series. In particular, oxycations are crucial for a variety of important oxygen-transfer reactions and are implicated in the biochemistry of vanadium and molybdenum». I admit most papers are old and I cannot access them even with my Wikipedia Library account, but their very titles seem to point towards clear notability. A definition is here in a 2019 book. That editors did not edit the article to add such references so far has no bearing in the deletion discussion, because by definition that is an issue solved by editing, and as such WP:ATD applies. cyclopiaspeak! 12:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find your point of view very puzzling. You don't want to delete an article because we have a mention of the word in a handful of old sources that no editor wants to bother summarizing. To me this is exactly what wp:notability means when it says "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." We fail "significant coverage" in my view: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail".
    But ok, let's drop that and ask: is there another solution here? Would you agree to merge? We can have some content in ion and redirect to it. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very puzzled as well. If several academic papers clearly discussing oxycations in detail are not "significant coverage" then what else it is? What am I missing? That is not "a mention of the word", they are papers about the subject, as their title shows. How is a paper titled "Electronic Structure, Spectra, and Magnetic Properties of Oxycations", for example, not significant coverage of oxycations? That such sources are somewhat hard to find does not make them irrelevant - but it probably explains at least in part why the article has not been improved. Yet, by our policies this is not relevant for notability or deletion. cyclopiaspeak! 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to List_of_aqueous_ions_by_element#List. I know there is very little on this article but because there are Oxyanions, then there are Oxycations by definiton. There is some mention in scientific literature, but the article looks very undeveloped. Some of the refs found by Cyclopia can be added. Also there is a category listing of oxycations Category:Oxocations and google scholar yields quite alot of refernces with that term. But as an alternative the redirect linked has a category specifying oxycations and oxycations. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree to redirect. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Reframe as navigational list. Basically this article is a navigational list, in that the meat of the article is nothing more than a set of valid blue-links to proper articles on oxycations. Helpfully, it also has a very concise summary of what it's a navigational list of (we're not a dictionary but we're allowed to specify the scope of our lists and give our readers a handle to check that we and they agree on what it is we're listing). As is typical for navigational lists, there is also a matching category, but many readers don't use categories. In this case, the list also points to the category, a belt-and-braces approach. The lack of sourcing is not a problem for navigational lists.
The suggested redirect to aqueous ions by element is fundamentally inappropriate because oxycations aren't necessarily aqueous ions. In fact NO+ doesn't exist in aqueous solution, while O2+ is mostly relevant in the gaseous state. Elemimele (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality

[edit]
Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is largely copied from elsewhere, with the copyvio tool showing a 74.4% similarity with existing sources. There's also a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here. Skitash (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The copyvio is only of 2 paragraphs that can be removed. You didn't show anything about WP:OR or WP:SYNTH on the talkpage so I cant really talk about that. But, this topic is really notable and has lots of RSs reporting on it and deserves an article of its own. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that much more of the article is copied from sources that aren't flagged by copyvio tools, such as Google Books. Also, large portions appear to be copied from other Wikipedia articles (such as Presidency of Hafez al-Assad) without attribution.
    WP:SYNTH/WP:OR claims include things like:
    • "Assad's skill as a cool, proud, tough, and shrewd negotiator in the post war period enabled him to gain the town of Kuneitra and the respect and admiration of many Arabs"
    • "Syrian Ba'ath Movement ideologically elevated Hafez al-Assad as its 'Immortal', 'god-like figure'"
    • "Arab Socialist Ba'ath party initially manufactured Hafez al-Assad's cult of Arab socialist heroism in consultancy with Soviet state propagandists, mimicking the pervasive personality cults prevalent across Soviet Bloc dictatorships like Romania and North Korea"
    • "In schools, children were taught to sing songs of adulation about Hafez al-Assad. Teachers began each lesson with the song 'Our eternal leader, Hafez al-Assad'"
    And more. All of these are either unsourced, not directly supported by the sources, or poorly sourced (i.e. lacking page numbers). Skitash (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New England Nightmare

[edit]
New England Nightmare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant edits for several years. Google search for references turns up only things about Halloween or bad news for the New England Patriots. It is unclear how this article can be salvaged. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emir Üyar

[edit]
Emir Üyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted and salted at Emir Uyar... still doesn't seem to have significant coverage with most publications writing about his relationship with Adriana Lima. Hmr (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moments (One Direction song)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Moments (One Direction song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After careful analyzing the article and cross its references and search more online, I believe this song doesn't meet the criteria for its own article.

The song is a GA article, however GA criteria has changed since the song was approved. Moreover, a song being a GA articles doesn't grant it notability.

Despite charting, these are lower regions of said charts and charts alone don't guaranty a article about said song should exist. The song was only part of a limited edition of the album. Most of the references are about the album, not the song itself and there are also brief mentions of the song when reviewing concerts because it was part of the setlist.

Ed Sheeran is an interested third party since he wrote the song and most of these are just interviews he gave speaking about the song. Henceforth, self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, producers and songwriters) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus solely upon it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator of this discussion was the nominator for the 1st AfD back in 2021. WP:NSONGS is going to be argued here again, which hasn't changed since the 1st AfD. The charting isn't the main criterion to keep the article, but there seems to be sufficient sourcing present. There's a long history of songs that were originally from one artist and then offered/given to another artist. That does not make the artist an "interested third party." I think you mean if the information is coming off as a press release with multiple sources. The sourcing should be limited to a primary source, marking it as a press release via {{cite press release}}. – The Grid (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11 Days

[edit]
11 Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, lacks significant coverage (not mentions in passing) in multiple independent secondary sources. The band's website is a primary source , whilst Spotify and Discogs are not reliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walk Away (Something Clever album)

[edit]
Walk Away (Something Clever album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. The sources/references provided are either about the band, not the EP (series of mentions in passing) or are unreliable (Spotify) or are primary sources (SonicBids, band's website, The Bash, ReverbNation) which are not independent of the band. Dan arndt (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Paradox (American band)

[edit]
The Paradox (American band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. None of the sources cited motions anything related to the band. Mekomo (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The deletion rationale appears to misinterpret or overlook the references.
  • Keep – The article meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. The band has received significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources, including Billboard, Kerrang!, Paste Magazine, Idobi, Alternative Press, and TheTellTaleMind. These sources discuss the band’s music, live performances (such as When We Were Young Fest), and rising popularity, making them clearly applicable. The assertion that "none of the sources mention the band" is incorrect. Accordingly, the article satisfies the notability criteria for bands and musicians. Wq4m820 (talk) 12:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wq4m820, the URLS are incorrect. They lead to landing pages rather than content about the band. JSFarman (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially supported keeping the article. Upon review of the sources, I now understand the deletion rationale. Wq4m820 (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kolkata Knight Riders–Royal Challengers Bengaluru rivalry

[edit]
Kolkata Knight Riders–Royal Challengers Bengaluru rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find sources that cover the rivalry in depth, only match reports / previews. None of these cover the rivalry in depth, just have passing mentions of them being rivals. As per WP:NRIVALRY the rivalry itself has to pass GNG. These teams have undoubtedly played each other a lot, but this article just seems to be a rehash of match reports / lists of loads of statistics. Spike 'em (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Robert Fudge

[edit]
Lester Robert Fudge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:BIO1E. The disaster where Mr Fudge provided aid was not particularly notable, and Mr Fudge appears to be otherwise a low-profile private individual. — Moriwen (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is Canada’s highest award for bravery, only 20 have been awarded in its 53 year history. If any Canadian should have their own Wikipedia entry, no matter how insignificant the rest of their lives were, its these 20 heroes. Capnwilly (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even a Canadian newspaper search is a bust. There is probably coverage that hasn't been digitized, but we can't show notability at this time. Would be better to find sourcing, then create the article, rather than the other way around. He's very likely notable, but no sourcing, so no article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Im gonna be honest i think the majority of these articles should probably be merged into the page where the medal is. of the 20 people who have gotten it 3 maybe 4 are more then just stubs that cite the medal citation I think a section that describes their actions would be better then having 15 stubby articles Scooby453w (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking the same thing. Make a chart in the article and put their names there. Brief description if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not look notable. Certainly not enough to a stand alone article. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let's look at the applicable guideline, Notability.
Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, item 1 says:
  • "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"
Mr. Fudge won the Cross of Valour (Canada).
We have articles on every Victoria Cross winner yet the majority are know for just one event. The distinction from your typical BIO1E is that they did something big and they received a very high award as a result. The same applies to Mr. Fudge. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motoki Imagawa

[edit]
Motoki Imagawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer with no usable sources and no good claim to notability. Someone tried to redirect it, but without any valid target. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo (footballer, born 1979)

[edit]
Rodrigo (footballer, born 1979) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer with no usable sources and no good claim to notability. Someone tried to redirect it, but without any valid target. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toshihiro Yahata

[edit]
Toshihiro Yahata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer with no usable sources and no good claim to notability. Someone tried to redirect it, but without any valid target. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taiki Maekawa

[edit]
Taiki Maekawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer with no usable sources and no good claim to notability. Someone tried to redirect it, but without any valid target. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yōsuke Nishi

[edit]
Yōsuke Nishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer with no usable sources and no good claim to notability. Someone tried to redirect it, but without any valid target. Geschichte (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esteghlal Javan

[edit]
Esteghlal Javan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, if not then redirect to Esteghlal F.C., which this paper was apparently focused on. The only source in the article is obviously not independent sigcov. Farsi Wikipedia has four sources, one of which [12] could count toward the GNG. Doing Google News searches for "روزنامه استقلال" and "روزنامه استقلال جوان" with a date range until 2015 turned up [13], which also seems to be sigcov. There are also a bunch of articles listing headlines or summarizing reports from multiple newspapers, including this one – they don't count towards the GNG but might demonstrate the impact of this newspaper, e.g. [14][15][16]. I don't speak Farsi, but I think this is a good start. Pinging @MarioGom, who asked about Farsi sources. Toadspike [Talk] 10:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Esteghlal F.C. or probably better to Ali Fathollahzadeh (former director of the newspaper and also Esteghlal F.C.). Notability is not established. It is a fan newspaper of Esteghlal F.C. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since there are several redirect targets floating in the conversation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JT Tran

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
JT Tran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failure of WP:GNG. An about me page and two ABC News interviews does not an article make. guninvalid (talk) 06:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per gunivalid, who I thank for redoing the AfD because I messed it up. GarethBaloney 21:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin RIP

[edit]
Harlequin RIP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources already on this page are either to press release style pages or to the company home page. I had trouble trying to find anything about this because of its current and previous names being so common across the internet. It's been tagged for 15 years, might as well start a discussion on it now. Moritoriko (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article was created by a CoI editor. Moritoriko (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green Actors of West Africa

[edit]
Green Actors of West Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been unsourced for 15 years. My searching regarding this organization in english and french have not turned up any independent sources and quite a few that cite wikipedia as a source which is a problem with an unsourced article. (Going through notability backlog) Moritoriko (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihlava-Staré Hory railway station

[edit]
Jihlava-Staré Hory railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sign of notability, a railway station is not notable just for being a railway station. The first source is a passing mention, the second does not mention the station at all, the third is a database. Draftification is also an alternative for this recently created page, but I doubt there is room for improvement – I didn't find any sources other than databases and cswiki doesn't contain any either. FromCzech (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niall J. English

[edit]
Niall J. English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biographical article not shown to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Even ignoring the WP:UPE/WP:SOCKing behaviours associated with article's creation (kinda hard to do TBH), my own WP:BEFORE hasn't surfaced sufficient independent sources to support the text of this title (even basics like DOB, POB, etc are unsupported). Not to mind a claim to notability. In terms of WP:GNG, all the biographical sources in the title are either clearly associated with the subject (including two biographical entries from websites associated with the subjects employer, and one interview which doesn't contribute to notability) or ROTM press reporting on a short-lived legal dispute (between the subject and his employer?). A WP:BEFORE search, in national news sources in Ireland, do not return any additional coverage. In short: in the Irish Independent stable of national and regional titles we find a passing mention of the legal case (and nothing else but false positives). On RTÉ news sites we find nothing for variants of subject name. Same goes for Irish Examiner - nothing for either variant.. In the Irish Times the only mentions I can find are the same two sources we find in the article. Nothing more for either variant. While I will admit to not being as familiar with how to apply WP:NACADEMIC, the subject appears to hold a fairly "normal" lecturer/professor role, isn't a named chair or dean or whatever, doesn't appear to be an elected member of a particularly notable scholarly society, and has the same Google Scholar "cited by" stats we might expect for any other working academic/researcher. Am I missing something? If someone hadn't seemingly been WP:PAID to create this article, would it have been created organically - because the subject clearly meets an applicable NBIO criteria? }} Guliolopez (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solinas prime

[edit]
Solinas prime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a made up name and topic. Of the sources that have ever appeared in the article, it is attested to only in sources that trace the name back to this Wikipedia article, via https://oeis.org/A165255 . This is true both of the original topic of the article (primes of the form ) and the new topic (as of this complete rewrite from 2017). The PROD was removed by an IP who pointed to [17], a work by Solinas that does not use the name "Solinas prime". Any encyclopedic content from the sources without the hoax name could be included at Mersenne_prime#Generalizations (which already cites this source). JBL (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A search in WP:The Wikipedia Library shows a few papers about the concept. A google search show the concept precedes the 2009 wikipedia article. Examples from 2002, 2006 and 2008: [19] [20] [21]. Two sources in the article are from 1999 [22] [23]. I don't think the concept is made up. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Solinas primes are a recognized class of prime numbers with applications in cryptography, particularly in ECC, among other areas. I found multiple high-quality academic sources in which they are directly discussed, including IEEE and Springer (WP:RS):
I've also checked Google Scholar [30], which shows pages of academic results for Solinas primes, laying to rest any claim of them being fringe. NIST, the gold standard in cybersecurity, has also recommended Solinas primes for cryptographic protocols. This topic easily meets WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleuger

[edit]
Pleuger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. 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]

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]
German and French available articles as well. Far more than borderline. scope_creepTalk 14:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The German and French Wikipedia articles are translations of this article, so they don’t contribute to the company’s notability in any way. Gheus (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can say this for almost every company that is "almost 100 years old" - I'm not convinced. If you have seen significant coverage, then just mention it here. Gheus (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google Books search turns up tons of sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 10:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "A Google Books search turns up tons of sigcov" - you can just name two books (with pp.) that cover this company in depth, and I'll withdraw the nomination if confirmed - it's that simple. Gheus (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. All I see in google searches is reprinted press releases and routine coverage of business transactions. I found one by-lined article. The top Google books hits look to be false positives or advertisements in trade-publications; I saw no obvious significant coverage. Maybe offline or German language sources exist that I missed, but at least a couple need to be found before an article is created. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Per google books search mentioned by Toadspike. I see some coverage of the equipment, but not the company itself. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus at present, further source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025)

[edit]
Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands, 2025) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar translations have been rejected in Draft space twice, see Draft:Revolutionary Socialist Party (Netherlands - 2025). As I have pointed out, coverage is mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands). There is this article, but in total I don't think the topic meets the notability threshold and it is better to wait for more coverage and/or electoral success. Dajasj (talk) 04:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I respectfully disagree. As the Wikipedia guidelines state that "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I'd argue that sources with independent coverage such as Trouw, DUIC, Dagblad010 in combination with sources such as RTL Nieuws that have coverage mostly related to the Socialist Party (Netherlands), add up to a topic that can be deemed as having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Furthermore, as the page already has a Dutch and Chinese translation, it would seem strange to deny an English translation, which seems like there is a double standard.

In short, I think there is enough coverage to meet the notability threshold. Electoral success as a prerequisite for the page doesn't seem logical to me, considering other existing pages of Dutch political parties that have not yet had any electoral successes. The Trouw article also explicitly covers antiparliamentary sentiments within the party, which implies the party itself does not prioritize electoral successes at least in the same way that the deletion request suggests.

I'd be happy to hear if you could detail which of the requirements from the general notability guideline exactly is missing and therefore how the article fails to meet the threshold. PS. Sorry If I messed some formatting up. I'm new to the AfD process.

Noverraz99 (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Noverraz99 (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article doesn't look like it's in the best shape, but I am going over my head. Can someone from the Netherlands comment on the reliability of RSP and ROOD?
    • Comment Indeed the article link seems to be broken. Luckily, it is archived here. As a person from the Netherlands I'd consider there to be enough reliable coverage of RSP and ROOD to warrant their articles, though if people disagree I would be open to hear their reasoning. Noverraz99 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can totally grasp someone's frustration that there are so many political parties in the Netherlands. Yet we follow the P&G. This meets the GNG and NORG. It's a proper SPINOFF of its parent. gidonb (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I agree with the nominator that the coverage from reliable sources has focused on the SP, not the RSP. "Significant coverage" means in-depth, focused coverage on the article topic in multiple reliable sources, not merely that multiple reliable sources mention it as part of the story. WP:ORG requires focused coverage. There is no inherited notability, and it seems to me that the undetailed coverage of the RSP only exists because of the SP, not because the RSP has done anything notable (yet). Yue🌙 22:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd argue coverage from the Algemeen Dagblad, Trouw and DUIC which all explicitly mention the RSP separate from the SP would count as significant. Simply put, the argument that the coverage would only exist because of the SP doesn't seem to hold up when for instance the Algemeen Dagblad article is in great part about, and features a prominent image of, the action headed by RSP.
    Noverraz99 (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Heylen

[edit]
Dirk Heylen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:50, 10 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) 03:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

[edit]
List of United Kingdom county name etymologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do you all want to do with the page after the content is dispersed? Deletion would cause attribution problems if the material is being used elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For attribution concerns, redirect to Toponymy in the United Kingdom and Ireland (which, by the way, deserves expansion, e.g., with a phrase or two from the discussed page.) AFAIK page history is sufficient for attribution --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I suggested "disperse", I did not pay attention that the article is woefully underreferenced. So now I am beginning to doubt whether "dispersing" the unreferenced information is that brilliant idea. --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately this article is a product of its time. The problem is summed up in the list's own introduction: "... it is often difficult to assess the genuine etymology of a placename...". And that makes good sourcing vital. Does anyone have access to the Oxford dictionary of place names or Birlin 2004 for Scotland? These are offered as general references that might cover some of the etymologies. If the etymologies can't be properly referenced, then sadly the article has to go. Dispersing a load of unsourced information into individual county articles isn't great. And sourcing stuff to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is (in wikipedia terms) original research. I'm sad... Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dummycrats

[edit]
Dummycrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source in the article is a dubiously reliable blog and I was unable to find any actual coverage of the film. Fails WP:NFILM. मल्ल (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Nichols, Alex (2018-11-27). "Diamond and Silk run the most obvious con on the right: The Fox News duo stars in 'Dummycrats,' a new and terrible documentary". The Outline. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

      The article notes: "And so we get the documentary Dummycrats, which was released in theaters for one day on October 16 and is now available for rent ($9.99) or purchase ($19.99) on Vimeo. (Many of the comments on Vimeo are from senior citizens who thought they were getting a DVD and are bewildered by the concept of watching a movie on the computer, but hey — they already bought it.) ... There’s really no reason not to produce one of these amateurish documentaries if you have the ability to; the peculiarities of conservative audiences make it all but impossible to disappoint them. The film’s producer, director, and writer, Kyle Olson, runs the third-string fake news website The American Mirror and is even lazier than Dinesh D’Souza when it comes to filming original content. Given that this was Olson’s first time working on a movie, I would normally be inclined to cut him some slack, but he truly pushes the limits of directorial incompetence. Dummycrats, which is 77 minutes long, opens with an astounding 27 minutes of archival footage. This lengthy segment begins with past Diamond and Silk TV spots and Trump rally appearances and then segues into a clip show of every Democratic gaffe since 1990, set to wacky circus music. You can watch all these on YouTube in higher resolutions than the deep-fried versions used in Dummycrats, but that sort of thing only matters to audiences with an average age younger than 85."

    2. Penrice, Ronda Racha (2018-10-23). "From Diamond and Silk to Kanye West: Why Republican efforts to convert black voters are failing". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

      The article notes: "How else to explain the new Diamond and Silk movie “Dummycrats,” which had its one-day theatrical release last week? Far from Oscar fodder, or even the MTV awards, the film is part of a broader, recent trend in which mostly white conservatives have sought out and elevated a series of black surrogates, hoping that these surrogates' often unintelligible, anti-liberal rantings will siphon black voters away from the Democratic Party. ... That support undoubtedly is also why Diamond and Silk now have their own movie, “Dummycrats.” The full-length film was theatrically released for one night only on October 15, but can now be screened on Vimeo. Waters and fellow Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi are the film’s biggest targets. While mostly unnoticed by the mainstream press, “Dummycrats” did get a few positive reviews in more conservative corners of the web. Writing for the conservative site Newsmax, Michael Clark claimed the film would “wake-up undecided voters.” Clark applauds the film’s lighter tone and lists what he sees as its best moments — moments that of course “expose” prominent Democrats."

    3. Levine, Jon (2018-09-28). "Diamond and Silk Release Trailer for 'Dummycrats' Movie: 'Two Unlikely Heroes' (Video)". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

      The article notes: "Diamond and Silk have released a teaser trailer for their new film “Dummycrats,” offering a few more clues as to what people can expect when it is released next month. ... The minute-long trailer is a mix of b-roll of Democratic politicians looking silly and the duo shouting at someone off camera. An earlier teaser released by the pair suggested that the film will take the form of a Michael Moore documentary. ... The latest trailer says the film will premiere on Oct. 15, a month later than an original September release date floated three months ago. The film was slated to debut in Palm Beach, Florida — home of Trump’s Mar-A-Lago estate."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Wolcott, James (2019-02-06). "James Wolcott on the Shelf Life of a Deplorable". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

        The article notes: "Some acts, like femme duo Diamond and Silk—whose 2018 documentary Dummycrats is clotted with YouTube clips of the two appearing at Trump events before launching into a prolonged, futile campaign to confront Maxine Waters on camera—seem to be perpetually auditioning for reality TV."

      2. Egan, Paul (2022-08-03). "Who is Tudor Dixon? 4 things to know about Michigan's GOP nominee for governor". Detroit Free Press. Archived from the original on 2025-05-19. Retrieved 2025-05-19.

        The article notes: "A company co-owned by Dixon was a producer of the 2018 film "Dummycrats." The "documentary" attack on former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and longtime California congresswoman Maxine Waters, also a Democrat, featured Black conservative political activist sisters "Diamond and Silk." The film was written and directed by Kyle Olson ..."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dummycrats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ryan Binkley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Binkley hasn't recieved notable coverage outside of his campaign, as far as I can tell. Even the campaign coverage was mostly routine and the votes he recieved make clear that his campaign wasn't notable Esolo5002 (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I can't grasp how this discussion was started despite the overwhelming evidence raised at the last AfD that indicates notability extending over multiple aspects of this individual. Even if you want to discount that the prolonged and significant coverage of Binkley's campaign does not extend notability to him as an individual, you have to accept that it does indicate notability of his campaign. Beyond this, multiple discussions established that there were substantial indications of notability beyond campaign coverage. Binkley's work as a pastor, M&A consultant, and restaurant franchise owner have all received coverage independent from his campaign. I would encourage Esolo5002 to withdraw this nomination expeditiously. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree very strongly with this reading of the last AFD, especially because two different discussions ended in deletions relatively recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two deletion discussions closed with different outcomes because 1.) less coverage had actually occurred up to that point and 2.) there was a lack of awareness regarding the other sources of this subject's notability. The latter discussion clearly indicates that what had previously been a consensus towards deletion had overwhelming shifted to a consensus to keep. For many subjects, this is the natural progression of things. Your rationale for deletion is objectively false, looking solely at the sources in the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As a corollary to all this, see Talk:Ryan Binkley#Requested move 25 February 2024, which directly addresses the question of notability beyond the campaign. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the sources currently in the article
    1-Probably is good enough
    2-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    3-Routine campaign announcement
    4-Not a news article
    5-Routine campaign announcement
    6-Routine campaign announcement
    7-More in-depth campaign coverage
    8-Press release
    9-More in-depth campaign coverage
    10-Couldn't access but doesn't appear to be about Binkley enough to help his notability
    11-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    12-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    13-Interview
    14-Routine campaign announcement
    15-Routine campaign announcement
    16-More in-depth campaign coverage
    17-Press release
    18-Routine campaign coverage
    19-Routine campaign coverage
    20-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    21-Routine campaign coverage
    22-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    23-Tweet
    24-Routine campaign coverage
    25-Doesn't even mention him
    26-Routine campaign coverage
    27-In-depth campaign coverage
    28-Not a news article
    29-Doesn't even mention him
    30-Live blog
    31-In-depth campaign coverage
    32-In-depth campaign coverage
    33-Live blog (and even if it wasn't, not enough for notability)
    34-Not a news article
    35-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)
    36-Literally has nothing to do with Binkley (I will remove this source after I'm done with this reply)
    37-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)
    38-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot)
    39-Routine campaign coverage (he was the only other person on the ballot, also Newsweek is not reliable)
    40-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    41-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    42-In-depth campaign coverage
    43-Not a news article
    44-Not about Binkley enough to help his notability
    45-Routine campaign coverage
    46-Couldn't access, probably routine campaign coverage
    47-Does not appear to be a reliable source, looks like a tabloid
    48-Press release
    One source is good enough for notability. Even in the in-depth campaign sources go on about nobody has ever heard of this guy. Lots of people run for President, some people have enough to get on the ballot, that doesn't mean they are notable. The Nevada coverage is so funny in hindsight because he was the only other person on the ballot, and got less than 1% of the vote. There is just not enough here for him to be notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your understanding is that six articles providing in-depth coverage of his campaign, another source you admit is adequate to source him as a subject, and still other sources describing him in other contexts is insufficient to retain an article? I think that you provide the real rationale for your edit in the comment above: that he got less than 1% of the vote. That being the case does nothing to determine notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Coverage of his campaign is not good enough for his own notability. It's good enough for his campaign's notabiity, not his own. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you thought that was the case, why aren't you proposing a move to Ryan Binkley presidential campaign? Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are more sources available now then the last time this article was kept, and notability is not temporary. Jahaza (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: No explanation has been offered for why the previous discussion result of "keep" was invalid. Notability once gained is not lost. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to a campaign oriented page such as a correctly spelled version of Ryan Binkley 2024 presidental campagin. This subject is now in its fourth AfD. Thus far, two deletes and a keep. The first two times we got it right. There are three claims here: candidate, pastor, and businessman. There is a lot of "Who is Ryan?" coverage which is campaign coverage caters to nerds. It literally goes "hey, look at this after thought!" It's like the coverage is a concession he is not notable. I am unconvinced that such coverage will be historically significant. The citations are also very announcement heavy which seems redundant. There are a number of efforts to mask a lack of notability. Identifying how much he spent on radio ads, the totals of other candidates, mentioning he spoke at a dinner literally all candidates get to speak at, and elaborate descriptions of his election results are hallmarks of efforts to mask a lack of notability. In many of the citations, Binkley is not the main subject. While one need not be the main subject, I feel he is too tertiary to add up a bunch of mentions (as another user points out are routine) and pretend it is the same as a smaller number of in-depth, sustained coverage sources (the HITC listicle seems particularly egregious). There is no lasting coverage. There is no in-depth coverage of the candidacy or the subject. His candidacy does not confer notability.
This leaves us with religious leader and businessman. I do not think he meets the religious leader criteria. The Church has 650 parishioners. While this is more people than I could ever hope to get to join me in anything, a Texas pastor who set out to church plant and several years later has 650 parishioners is not on its own notable. Finally, I don't think his business career meets notability. The business sources in the article are only once independent of the subject and the mention of him as part of a small franchisee team. Notability gained is not lost as someone said, BUT notability can be wrongly conferred by an AfD during election season as happens pretty regularly (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby v.s. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Raby (2nd nomination)). Deletions were correct in the first and second nomination. It was on the third nomination, done during peak election season when WP:NOTNEWS gets thrown out the window, that an erroneous consensus was reached.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This !vote is confusing. A !vote for deletion necessarily means the deletion of the content. A redirect means deleting the content (and possibly merging some content) to an existing article. What appears to be suggested is a page move, which is fundamentally different as the content is retained (albeit perhaps with an alteration to the scope). Discounting fulfillment of the GNG (which this article and subject absolutely does) because it's about a guy who failed in an election is bad precedent. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware they are different. I mention I would be OK with a redirect as an alternative. I do not believe the subject should have a standalone page because of a failure to have the kind of independent, in-depth, sustained coverage expected under GNG as I say in my nomination and as Esolo5002 lays out in depth. There is no greater proof of this than the very little (if any) coverage of him since the 2024 Republican primary election. Would you prefer I make this exclusively a !deletevote?--Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed solution was a redirect to an article that doesn't exist. Further, a straight !vote for deletion makes no sense by GNG: Esolo5002's analysis indicates that we have a RS source from 2020 that provides SIGCOV of the subject plus multiple RSs providing SIGCOV during the election. That alone meets GNG. !voting delete would seem to be a peculiar reaction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: I think Binkley is a bit of a loon, so your unsubtle aspersion should be retracted. If anything, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can either claim my vote is nonsensical or you can be mad when I simplify it. This was not done out of spite, it was to ensure my vote is accurately weighted by the closer. I can see how my inclusion of the essay was unfair. I clearly made some assumptions based on past AfDs with candidate advocates fighting for articles. I should not have let that cloud my judgment as to your !vote.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mpen320: Your explanation is much appreciated. I agree that we should not run in circles here, and accept that you are convinced to !vote delete based on policy, even if I disagree. Let me know if you need help accessing at anything related to this subject if you participate anywhere else in this AfD. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete: Provide a single noteworthy news source talking about this guy after the election, or before the election. He was a flash in the pan candidate and people with Wikipedia articles should have enough coverage of the person beyond just one event, if not, mention them in the page for the event.
Ryan Binkley's inclusion in Wikipedia should be limited to a redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Candidates.
Scuba 21:31, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you forgot, but you were very clearly informed that there was indeed an adequate source prior to the election, see this discussion. If you believe that coverage persisting past an arbitrary point is a necessary prerequisite, this is not premised in the WP:GNG. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not changing my vote from last time as I'm not sure what has changed. SportingFlyer T·C 07:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not clear even from the sources in the article. He was minor candidiate that did not make it. It seems the artcle was created for his candidacy purposes. I don't see notable coverage after the Primaries in 2024. Not enough for a stand alone article. Cannot think of a useful redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To any closer, please consider moving this to a draft briefly, as I would like to access the history for about 48 hours. I want to consider this for a possibly discussion on the relevant policy talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment here, but it comes down to the following: I worry the application of NPOL might be superseding the standards of WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This article has SIGCOV of the subject from national- or international-level reliable sources from the following months:
      • May 2020 (pre-election): 1
      • April 2023: 1, 2
      • July 2023: 1
      • January 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4
      • February 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
    • Maybe US presidential elections are a special case where the remarkable amount of news coverage outweighs the conventional BASIC and GNG standards. Consider responding at the above-linked discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I started to write this at WT:Notability (people) where Pbritti has opened a separate discussion, but my comment became more about this specific AfD so I'm leaving it here. Breaking news like "Binkley announces he is running for president" is primary sourcing and therefore doesn't count toward notability under GNG or BASIC. Stringing together separate breaking news sources to create an article is bad practice and produces low-quality content. General coverage like a biographical piece on Binkley's life is secondary and does count toward notability. Most sourcing about him looks to be the former, and even the ones that lean toward the latter seem to be prompted and heavily influenced by ongoing events rather than analysis that indicates he has more generally been taken note of as a significant figure. So my question is whether any general biographical sources have been written about him. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for replying here. There's a source from 2020 that's been discussed before, unrelated to the election. Please feel welcome to comment further in the other discussion, too; I'd like to hear more about what you said regarding BASIC in the discussion above the one I started. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Bok-seok

[edit]
Sim Bok-seok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only reference currently in the article is a database, and all I could find elsewhere was a short mention [[31]] that beyond his Olympic appearance, little is known about him. A redirect to Korea at the 1948 Summer Olympics may be a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything on him besides what's already been mentioned. Despite being one of the last surviving athletes of the 1948 Summer Olympics, I don't think that contributes in any way. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 02:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's no article of him on kowiki if that says anything. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 02:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Professional Certification

[edit]
Ubuntu Professional Certification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find any secondary sources that are not user-generated about this certification system. This certification is not even mentioned on Ubuntu or Canonical's page. Online searches yield no results from ProQuest or Google, and there does not seem like there is a quality redirect target. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage. The forum source doesn't count towards notability. I can't access the other one due to the Wayback Machine being blocked on my work internet, but given that it's from Canonical themselves, it's irrelevant anyway for notability purposes. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 02:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the other source now that I'm home, and yeah it's just a press release. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 13:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Vikhos

[edit]
Andreas Vikhos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are simply databases, and all I could find elsewhere were some mentions like [[32]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rich TVX News Network Site

Rich TVX News Network Info

© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search