Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 11	April 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Korenya Shingetsuan

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This content should be placed under a food of Japan or cuisine type article and does not need a split article by itself. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Skyfire

AfDs for this article:

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

Same problems the article had years ago, when the article was deleted. A local wrestler who worked on independent promotions. No notable. Sources are just WP:ROUTINE results, with no in-deep coverage or focus around the wrestler. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

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

Please note that this isn't about deletion. This is for either partial merging or renaming article with George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. My main concern is that the fork article is longer than the article about the person. Most of this could fit into the biographical article. I would suggest moving the sections about the downfall of the Duke of Clarence to bio article while making this one entirely about the incident of the miscarriage of justice - which was what the article was about initially, as I understand.

It's also worth noting that the history behind the Duke's fall is far more complex, with his brother using this incident more as an excuse to get rid of him for past treasonous behavior like changing sides during the Wars of the Roses and going against his brother the King. Edit: Note that this isn't about a full merge. Sorry I didn't make that part clear. I'm not AfD savvy lol. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Royalty and nobility, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Oppose merge. Notable as a stand alone subject in its own right. Pinging those involved in the very recent FAC discussion: @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Premeditated Chaos, AirshipJungleman29, Nikkimaria, Tim riley, MSincccc, Generalissima, Graham Beards, Surtsicna, Dudley Miles, Gog the Mild, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Borsoka: - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat, oh it definitely is, the miscarriage of justice itself which is why I'd say rename the article and move the bio bits to the Duke of Clarence article which has barely anything in it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / oppose merge – this is a nonsense proposal: the article was promoted to FA less than two months ago. Were all the FAC reviewers dim in failing to suggest that it should be rolled into the George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence article? At 4,000+ words it would disproportion that 1,500-word article to a ludicrous degree. Tim riley talk 08:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley, hence the other proposal for renaming the page, at the very least. Sorry if I caused confusion. I've rewritten the nomination to make my point more clear. I wasn't sure how else to do it otherwise other than this way. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are trying to say by "renaming the page, at the very." But the articles ain't broke and don't need fixing. Do you not imagine that a few of the FAC reviewers would have suggested merging if they thought it sensible? The title of the article was extensively commented on at the FAC review. Tim riley talk 08:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I'd say the fact many of them commented on the fact it was an "odd title" is kind of my point as well. The article is not broke, I agree, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved on further a bit. The George, Duke of Clarence article is just not good and could be MUCH improved in this way as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will feel free to MUCH improve that article. Tim riley talk 10:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanos Sinos

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

Deprodded without improvement. Current sourcing does not show notability, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of a whopping 11, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find notability in GNG or Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Gbooks link above shows several volumes either citing or discussing this author, in English and German. He worked on the Parthenon among other things, I'd say these show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Mazzucelli

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable academic. She has had a number of positions at assistant professor or program development associate level over the last thirty years, mainly lecturing. No evidence of tenure or mentoring of PhD students. Excluding her thesis, 6 publications of which she was author of 2 and a book co-editor of the other 4. Total citations that I can validate since her thesis in 1997 are 307, two co-edited books have 202 & 101, the others are negligible. Only award is an honorary degree which looks dubious. Page has a complex history with AfD concensus draftification, abandoned draft and several PRODs; full history has been resurrected. Version prior to some cleaning (1) was full of name dropping, peacock and promo; current cleaned version still contains some unverified claims. Overall conclusion is fails WP:NPROF, publications are WP:MILL for an academic and do not meet WP:NAuthor, nothing for general WP:GNG. Page might need salting. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May Mobility

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

No apparent WP:SUSTAINED notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Peabirú

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

The player appears in databases with spells at Santos and Coritiba [1], but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, and Brazil. Svartner (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Finley (businessman)

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

There are brief mentions here and here but none of them are in-depth enough to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al-Rahman Bin Khalil Bin Abdallah Nur

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

Collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to create an article about a non-notable individual who fails WP:NBIO. Being on a random "most wanted poster", without corresponding WP:SIGCOV does not satisfy WP:GNG. Not to mention this is a WP:BLPCRIME issue. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Terrorism, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University Nord

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

Nomination for deletion:

I am nominating this article for deletion because it lacks notability and contains very little useful content. The university ceased to exist as an independent entity in 2010 after being merged into Tallinn University. The article provides minimal historical context, no significant coverage from reliable independent sources, and fails to establish why this defunct institution deserves a standalone entry. Additionally, the article lacks encyclopaedic value due to poor structure and insufficient context, making it difficult for readers to understand the subject or its relevance. Any notable information here could be better incorporated into the Tallinn University article.

ᴛʜᴇMᴀɴLK ^(Talk) 23:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I suggest searching "Akadeemia Nord" for sources. Universities rarely fail GNG. For example they wanted to merge into Tartu University etc. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a number of reliable and independent sources sources. An entry at Eesti entsüklopeedia, articles in Postimees and Õhtuleht, etc. ExRat (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The article is just one sentence, with no sources or context. Even if the subject might meet notability, this version clearly doesn’t. Given the 2010 merger into Tallinn University, merging any sourced content there makes more sense than keeping this standalone stub. 37.139.112.182 (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Izno (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arc of Statehood

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

I could not find any non-routine coverage of this beyond the site for the capitol grounds themselves. Likely better incorporated into a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also searched for independent significant coverage but was unsuccessful. It does not make sense to merge/redirect it to a list of public art installations because it is not art, it is a series of informational plaques or "markers" with text about each county. That is not the same as public art or public sculpture. Even Washington State doesn't describe it as art, and the Fact Sheet lists the "artist" as "Unknown", so for all we know it could have simply been designed by the sign shop or foundry who cast the plaques. The sourcing consists of one sentence in an Arcadia Press book, (there have been many discussions about the reliability of Arcadia books which are mainly written for tourists); the listing in the Washington State database; and a draft of a proposal for Heritage Park itself, which is a work-for-hire pre-design study between the capitol and two consulting groups. Maybe it could be merged into the Washington State Capitol article in the subsection Art and monuments where it is already mentioned? Netherzone (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heritage Park (Olympia). Most of the sources I've found only give it a passing mention in the context of the park. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: since both the Capitol and Heritage Park (Olympia) have been IDed as potential targers, is one better than the other?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although I mention above Washington State Capitol Art and monuments, neither that target, nor Hertitage Park (Olympia) is great since these trail markers are neither a public art work, nor a monument. Heritage Park (Olympia) is a one sentence stub sourced to itself which doesn't help much. I still think deletion is appropriate for these non-notable trail markers, however I am now wondering, if there is a consensus for merging, whether List of public art in Olympia, Washington is a better target because there is a sentence there. The only thing about this that seems like an awkward (and inaccurate) merge is that it is not "public art", it's interpretive signage, However because it fails both WP:GNG and notable engineered construct WP:NBUILD I think the best solution is d*elete. Netherzone (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sea to Sky (sculpture)

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

Another Olympia public art installation. This one has two sources, but one of the sources has a single sentence about the piece. Should be included on a list of public art installations in the city (and a page for the artist, who appears notable) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG, would prefer to see this article expanded based on the newly added sources, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These new sources don't seem to mention the sculpture. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia

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

New editor has created a number of pages called "Climate change in X region/country" and they are very similar. While the title seems a fitting topic for an article the content is mostly WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL e.g. Ticks and mosquitoes and will become more commons(sic). Thought I would wait for consensus on whether this is a delete or improve before nominating the rest. Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Germany. Orange sticker (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On it being original research, the vast majority of the writing I wrote is cited with WP:SECONDARY sources. So it is not original research.

As for it having a lot of "crystal ball" content, the vast majority of the content I wrote is about the relevant state/province/region/community's '''current''' government policy. Some of the content I wrote relates to the regional effects of climate change in a specific area, but it has citations to relevant sources. But you cannot meaningfully separate these things. The time horizon for the effects of climate change are very long. [2] Climate change in North Rhine-Westphalia is relatively unusual compared to Climate change in Bremen. I accept that this could be improved.

Current government policy on this topic relates to building sea defences, building more parks and other infrastructure, because of the effects of climate change in the future, the time at which such infrastructure would be completed. The time horizons on infrastructure are very long. There are other pages solely on future infrastructure. For example, Lower Thames Crossing. When writing content for Climate change in Schleswig-Holstein, there is more content about adaptation strategies. I accept that this could be improved.

Overall, I think deletion is just the wrong outcome. Landpin (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% apologise for writing a typo. Landpin (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Smith (soccer)

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. The article also seems to have been heavily edited by the subject himself. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Pennsylvania, and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources in the article are match statistics or routine signing announcements from teams the subject played for. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex O'Connor

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, there's also no indication the factors have changed since the last AfD after which it was deleted. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and England. Star Mississippi 19:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The factors have changed since the last AfD. The article's subject is now covered in more reliable secondary sources that were not present in the previously deleted article, such as articles in The Atlantic, Varsity, and The Freethinker. The article from 2024 that was deleted did not contain these kinds of citations. Cyrobyte (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Worthy (record producer)

AfDs for this article:

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

The problem with this article is the same as when it was deleted the last time: almost all of the sources are not journalism but thinly veiled promotional material dressed up to look like "interviews," which are simply softball question templates filled in by the artist himself.

For example, this source is written by Lenell Johnson, whom Allmusic lists as Worthy's A&R rep. Another source, Singersoom, doesn't even mask its identity as a paid PR platform, as it has an "Advertise your music" banner on its site. Even an article in a source which might be thought of as reliable, The Source, reads like a PR blog post and claims, like the rest of Worthy's PR material, that he has been nominated for three Grammy awards, which I have not been able to corroborate with a WP:RS. This article in "Elevator" magazine is an article clearly tagged "promoted" and whose author is listed as "Advertiser."

I see no indication that Worthy has received any in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources that will satisfy WP:MUSICBIO, despite the "citation bombing" from Allmusic, Discogs, Spotify, iTunes, and IMDB. Rift (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Katwa

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

Contested redirect. Zero in-depth coverage of this battle. In fact, very little beyond the short blurb in the current single source. Fails WP:GNG. Could restore the redirect as an ATD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Onel. Scarcely covered in the sources. ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakakarta (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maratha invasions of Bengal, where the battle that has received no significant coverage (afaict) can be discussed in context.

The cited tertiary source devotes two sentences to the battle; many of the details in the current wikipedia article are not even verified by that source. Searching for other sources finds either dated sources (eg Majumdar (1958) (p. 242); Haig (1937) (p. 368)) with perfunctory coverage (and fwiw inconsistent details) or non-RS self-published works with a sentence or two. By the way, my argument and !vote also applies to Second Battle of Katwa in case its BLARing is challenged. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

`

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Lee Kelly, 1973)

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

I'll admit this one is pretty difficult to search for, but I don't think it's notable; the site for the capitol grounds appear to be the only real coverage of this piece of public art. Belongs on a list of the artist's works and a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the work is cited as being among the Washington Capitol collection, a prominent sculpture collection in the Northwest U.S. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to agree with the nominator that the collection is the subject. Uncle G (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington, which Uncle G did a nice job touching up. The offical source is not even substantive. An artwork does not inherit notability from its location or the collection it's in, that's no basis for single-sentence, single-source pages. If the collection is prominent, you are welcome to expand Washington State Capitol#Art and monuments as well. Reywas92^Talk 13:50, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shared on the article's Talk page and now included as bare citations in the entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Give us one fact from those sources that is neither in the Washington State official blurb nor the Crooks book. (Hint: Historians can read newspapers, too.) Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not the standard for notability, but the first article says that the model for the statute was created in wood. A fact (among several at least) that's in the article and not in either the official blurb or Crooks. Jahaza (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a way to evaluate the depths of the sources being waved around, which have been merely described as "this" and "a bit weak"; and notability is very much about the depth of sourcing. If you aren't looking for depth, you aren't doing it right. Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage seems to have happened because of the prominent location of the work, but the coverage exists. Jahaza (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super 8 T20 Cup was much more selective than the National T20 Cup, had T20 status, and was the precursor of the Pakistan Super League. Pakistani publications regularly covered it while the event was ongoing ([3], [4], [5], [6]), and I'm sure there must be some offline coverage of it in almanacs. Since Wikipedia also functions as an almanac (WP:5P1), we must cover T20 matches as part of our almanac coverage.

The tournament was definitely notable, but I'm not sure about the individual seasons that were not nominated. In any case, the matches held in those seasons shoulde be part of our almanac coverage. You could request a merge and renaming of those seasons so that they resemble maybe in the form of 2011 season in Pakistani cricket, and so on, and add those matches there, but it is not for WP:AFD to decide. Please initiate a WP:RFC on WP:CRIC, so that all members are on the same page and we do not have selective purges due to the lack of WP:AFD participation. Veldsenk (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches (International cricket in 2010–11) but articles for domestic cricket are still missing. Veldsenk (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the point about the almanac is a good one from Veldsenk. This article also is notable when factoring Pakistani sources in addition. Which is permissible. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Veldsenk and Iljhgtn: see WP:OSE, which is an argument to avoid in afd, but that's what you're doing here. Vestrian24Bio 15:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? You cite WP:OSE, which states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist..." Neither of us were making arguments on the grounds of "...whether other articles do or do not exist...", but were instead arguing in support of a Keep based in part on WP:5P1. @Veldsenk might have more to add? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches" - which is part WP:OSE.

WP:5P1 also includes WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Vestrian24Bio 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leeroy Maguraushe

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this Zimbabwean footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Zimbabwe, North Carolina, Texas, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Man Power Trip

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

WWF team lasting less than two months. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lasted that length due to injury to Triple H but in that two months, was a very significant part of their programming in early-mid 2001. No. It does not get deleted. Russ Jericho (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Jericho: Could you explain the significance of the team with reliable sources (check WP:PW/RS)? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/The_Power_Trip 67.198.117.6 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Only has one source and was made by an IP in 2005. After all this time, it should have improved if it was notable. May be better as a section in Stone Cold or Triple Hs page. More of a fan page than encyclopedia entry. Ramos1990 (talk)
Weak keep There's a source in the article. Probably more out there. Unlikely the nominator did the requied WP:BEFORE search based on the speed of their other nominations. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a comment on the possible sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~,Weak keep, as I said previously, this is a bit tabloidy, but also needs more sources, however for the subject matter, I could be convinced that it is a weak keep at best. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, has substantial notability and support by the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and the fanbase, and the faction appears frequently in various articles. More citations and perhaps a bit of detail are needed however. WorldClassChampion (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. What this, or really any, article needs is independent, reliable sources not hype. The best I could find was the Sportster which, IMO, isn't enough. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither the Sportster nor fandom sources are reliable sources. Policy based input would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good (Don't Die)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am glad to have been notified on the deletion discussion to this article that I created and still stand by its existence, as there is much info discussed from multiple sources of the lawsuit information specifically related to this song and it also charted in multiple countries. --K. Peake 07:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it can be argued that the lawsuit is notable. But notable songs need to be the subject of multiple in-depth independent sources—album reviews do not count. Do you have sources that show this? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is Lord

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apart from charting there are specific references enabling background and composition sections. In the continuing RfC a number of editors consider that album reviews that include content about a song do count towards WP:GNG of the song which would also be the case here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanga (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; only source about this song is the HotNewhipHop piece. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:33, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah (Kanye West song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cudi Montage

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

Fails WP:NSONG; only a single piece of coverage about the song itself (the Okayplayer piece); should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I mentioned in my !vote in the ongoing NSONG RFC, I believe reviews (or other sources) about a full album should be able to contribute to a song's notability if the song individually receives substantive discussion in those sources. The amount of sourced detail this article contains—on the song's style, lyrical content, critical reception, the process of securing the sample—suggests strongly to me that this topic has received such substantive discussion and is therefore notable. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ModernDayTrilobite. Locust member (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ModernDayTrilobite. dotXK 07:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do It (¥$ song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:24, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Street Krew

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

A bunch of guys hanging out backstage rumored to have heat with The Kliq and believed to have been created as a counter to them, but the myth has been busted. They do not have any incidents like the "Curtain Call" by the Kliq. They only teamed once onscreen in a Survivor Series match in 1995, apparently called "The Darkside", unlike The Kliq who had The Outsiders going to WCW, nWo and DX. Just because of the rumors, this could be merged to The Kliq article or The Undertaker#Personal life because of his visible tattoo (or "locker room leadership"). BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article already includes sufficient third-party sources explicitly about the group (that is, not passing mentions or routine coverage) to fulfill notability requirements. The nom seems to think the relative lack of on-screen use of the group is meaningful, but that is not defining at all. oknazevad (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cmus

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

Notability? TheAwesome Hwyh 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find links to gethub and reddit, some videos on this software, nothing for reviews or anything we need for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:33, 12 April 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 speedy keep‎ /IAR "Never even heard of it" is not a deletion rationale and sourcing has already been shown to exist. Let's not waste a week of community time Star Mississippi 22:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog (software)

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

Not notable. Never even heard of it. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 19:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Likely there are many things you haven't heard of (your recent edits demonstrate that), but notability was established by the 2nd and 3rd sources. TEDickey (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the article's reference list, there's in-depth coverage in Linux Journal. I'm sure there have been other articles in the tech press though it's hard to search for them given the tool's very generic name. (If I have time I'll do some more digging and post back here.) —Psychonaut (talk) 20:03, 12 April 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.

YaST

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

Not notable. Should be merged into OpenSUSE. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable, even independent of (open)SUSE, with in-depth coverage in Phoronix (SUSE's YaST Team Drops Cockpit With New Installer Code) and C-Net (Novell management tool going open source). There are already further independent sources in the article's reference list. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REVTeX

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:57, 12 April 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 speedy keep‎ /IAR. Extant sourcing says otherwise. Star Mississippi 00:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RefTeX

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the article's reference list, the topic has attracted in-depth coverage (totalling about 13 printed pages) in at least four independent reliable sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. "Obviously not notable. Just a random email client." is not grounds for a nomination. Let's not waste a week of community time. Star Mississippi 22:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gnus

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

Obviously not notable. Just a random email client. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 12 April 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.

Planner (program)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 12 April 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 speedy keep‎ Procedural/IAR. Sufficient sourcing has been IDed (thank you) to counter the nom which was one of many today Star Mississippi 01:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MULE

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

Not notable, obviously. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The software has significant independent coverage in the "The CJK package for LaTeX 2ε — Multilingual support beyond babel" by Werner Lemberg (TUGboat 18(3):214–224, 1997) and CJKV Information Processing: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese by Ken Lunde (O'Reilly, 2nd ed., 2009; mostly on pp. 646–647). It's also the subject of multiple scientific conference papers which, although not entirely independent of the software, did at least undergo peer review:
- K. Handa, M. Nishikimi, and S. Tamura. "Mule: A MULtilingual Enhancement to GNU Emacs." In Proceedings 1993 International Networking Conference (INET 93).
- K. Handa, M. Nishikimi, S. Tomura, and N. Takahashi. "Unified and Extensible Mechanism for Multilingual Text Processing." In Proceedings of the Fourth Pacific Rim Conference on Artificial Intelligence (PRICAI '96).

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.

Latoya Dacosta

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

Notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Jamaica. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 20:31, 12 April 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 Procedural Keep‎. We're not spending more time than the nom did on creating this. Star Mississippi 23:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Review in this book (not fully viewable but very likely passes significant coverage threshold), A whole chapter in this book. Review in Home Cinema Choice, online review from a long running print magazine, seems a reliable source. --Mika1h (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this review by Starburst magazine: [7], and a short review in this Spanish magazine: [8] --Mika1h (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. 18 extant sources say otherwise. Let's not waste community time here. Star Mississippi 23:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supervixens

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this nomination is utterly pointless. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 12 April 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.

Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens

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

Not a notable film. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Roger Ebert and Russ Meyer, one of their two collaborations. That plus its big profit gets it enough sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage from The Guardian [9], Jonathan Rosenbaum [10], Slant Magazine [11]. hinnk (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Witches of Breastwick

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find sources that Project Horror uses [12], so that's of no help. This is the only sort of review in a source I could find [13], I'm not sure if that's a RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.Nickm57 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion of the Bee Girls

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 12 April 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 speedy keep. Zero effort in the nomination, which is 1 of about 30 from the same user today, as well as WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Screwfly Solution

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Science fiction and fantasy. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nebula Award winner. Analyzed in Science Fiction Studies,[14][15], Women's Studies Quarterly,[16] and Biography. [17] The TV episode based on it reviewed in The Irish Journal of Gothic and Horror Studies.[18] The novella is covered in the biography The Double Life of Alice B. Sheldon (Julie Phillips, 2015) and was adapted as a play.[19] I'm sure I'll find more, and will use them to improve the article, but I think this is sufficient to justify "keep". Schazjmd (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Schazjmd. The Nebula award is one of the two biggest awards of speculative fiction - winning a major category is likely enough by itself, but it isn't conceivable that a major winner hasn't received substantive critical attention. It has also been anthologized dozens of times. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above, enough to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:07, 12 April 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.

Sawfish (window manager)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant independent coverage exists in the books A Practical Guide to Red Hat Linux by Mark G. Sobell (O'Reilly, 2003) and Mastering Linux by Arman Danesh and ‎Michael Jang (Wiley, 2006). There's maybe a dozen pages in the former and one in the latter. A Google Books search shows dozens of other results; most of them seem to be brief mentions but I didn't carefully check all of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlock (text editor)

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissociated press

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article already has ample references to significant coverage in reliable sources, including The Jargon File and BYTE Magazine. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Emacs

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

Not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doom's github repository has 20k+ stars. For reference, Linux has 192k, spacemacs has 23k. Doom is a popular configuration framework for Emacs these days, and I don't think it's worth removing. Kuromedayo (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spacemacs

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

Cool, but not notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EMMS (media player)

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

Seems blatantly non-notable. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 12 April 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 Procedural Keep‎. COmmunity bandwidth is already limited. We're not wasting more of it. Star Mississippi 23:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rcirc

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. A one-word nomination is not something for the community to spend time on, among others because the article has been nominated twice before - ending in keep and no consensus. You are absolutely obliged to address the issues and arguments from the previous discussions, but no. You only wrote one single word. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was IAR Keep‎. This is not a nomination Star Mississippi 23:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eww (web browser)

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

Is this browser notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 12 April 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.

Revista Brasileira de Química

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and has not citations in the article. Only mentions are in bibliographic databases. In the context of academic journals, this was apparently published in a time period between 1930 and 1980 as a local (country-specific) journal of chemistry though it has been difficult to pin down exact dates. Searching in CAS (chemical abstract service) SciFinder for the journal results in only 86 articles catalogued, and most of those seem to be reviews of general chemistry topics for the Brazilian audience (e.g. Armentano, M.A. Origin and development of cosmetic science and technology (1979), 87(527), 143-8). No external coverage that I can find beyond database listings in WorldCat and CAS. A few libraries may still have hard copies per WorldCat for those that can + want to look deeper via interlibrary loan to see if scientific contributions were significant. My prod was removed with the comment that this was an important scientific journal mid-century, but sourcing is still needed to back the notability claim. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Based on sources that Headbomb has provided and the edits planned by BaduFerreira, I agree that merging pages about the various successive journals together or to their parent society pages is a better course of action. Not closing yet to avoid cutting off discussion. Willing to help locate articles from these journals (ping me).Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was an important journal of chemistry in the mid 1990s. I'm 95% sure this is the precursor journal to Química Nova (established in 1978, followed the demise of this journal) and should be merged there (or perhaps at Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química), but I don't speak Portugese and there's potential for confusion with other similarly named journals, from two different organization named Sociedade Brasileira de Química. This might offer insight. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a source that talks about the journal, this one does to a fair extent, though it covers the history of the first Sociedade Brasileira de Química, in Rio, not the second in Sao Paolo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, that might be about the other journal... It's so frustrating not to be able to speak portugese here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Revista Brasileira de Química into Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química.

Very fascinating article! Thank you for finding it. On PDF page 3 (article page 447), it says that the first edition of the journal published by the Brazilian Chemical Society (SBQ) (more info on this later) in 1929 was titled the Revista Brasileira de Chimica, but the second edition published in 1931 was titled the Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Chimica. The title changed again in 1933 to spell Chimica (chemistry) as Química, which is the modern-day spelling, due to orthographic changes in the Portuguese language. That means that the two articles (Revista Brasileira de Química and Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Química) are about the same journal, so I think a merge is the proper course of action. The source describes other Brazilian chemistry societies, such as the Associação Química do Brasil (Chemistry Association of Brazil) that occasionally butted heads with the SBQ, the Associação Brasileira de Química (Brazilian Association of Chemistry), and then a new Sociedade Brasileira de Química that was founded in 1977 after the creation of the Brazilian Association of Chemistry. The source specifically mentions that the two instances of the Sociedade Brasileira de Química are distinct and separate organizations. We could probably use this article to flesh out the Brazilian Chemical Society article. I'll try to make some improvements to these articles in the next day or so! BaduFerreira (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to the relevant societies is also a possibility. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Successor Support System

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

Is this notable? I can find no articles about it online. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COGCON

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

Notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Chico

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

Is this notable? Potential hoax. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 12 April 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 Procedural/IAR‎. No indication this is a hoax. Should you wish to pursue this, please make a policy-based nomination. Star Mississippi 23:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a Plan D situation

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

Is this a hoax? Notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep‎. Article does have sources so it is certainly is no hoax; as with the other noms, please create a nom based on policy, not your gut feelings. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 01:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Emergency Plan D-Minus

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

Hoax? And, is this even notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination has been addressed. Star Mississippi 23:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shorrock

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

Is this person notable? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Politics. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Japan, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. You made about 30 AFDs today, where at least some apparently lack effort. You have to include an actual argument for lack of notability. He is an author, so you would need to check for book reviews. I found 2 in 20 seconds [20] [21] and it's not my WP:BURDEN to scroll down for even more reviews. Geschichte (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was IAR/PK‎. Not a reason for deletion. Should you wish to pursue this, please make a policy-based nomination. Star Mississippi 23:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Main Core

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

Is this a hoax? Seems similar to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rex_84 TheAwesome Hwyh 18:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, United States of America, and North America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Not a reason for deletion. Should you wish to pursue this, please make a policy-based nomination. Star Mississippi 23:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rex 84

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

I don't think this is real. It sounds like a hoax. Delete? TheAwesome Hwyh 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, History, Military, Politics, Iran, United States of America, and North America. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Reason 1: it's not relevant what you "think", you need actual reasons and arguments as to why it is a hoax. Reason 2: you have started about 30 AFDs today, and we don't necessarily have the capacity to discuss so many. Reasons 1 and 2 are tied together, because you leave a much larger burden on the community when you don't write a real nomination. Geschichte (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: The sources in the article clearly establish that this is not a made up topic. WP:BEFORE fail. Curbon7 (talk) 22:49, 12 April 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.

Eastern Slavonia front

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

This article it was created by a newbie last year, and its topic seems to be completely overlapping with other articles about the Croatian War of Independence, noticably the two linked from Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia. A Google Books search for the phrase "Eastern Slavonia front" only gives a handful of results, so this isn't a particularly likely search term, and it seems unreasonable to maintain three articles about basically the same thing. --Joy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Croatia. Joy (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Hall

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

While her works are somewhat notable, her herself isn't exactly, failing WP:GNG. It's a stub, I get it, but there's so little information on here and almost nothing on Google. We don't even know if she's alive or not. KrystalInfernus (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: She doesn't have any works of her own. She is an actress who has appeared in some notable stage works, but the article does not say what roles she played. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jamee E. Comans

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

This immigration judge does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. She has been mentioned recently in the news in relation to Detention of Mahmoud Khalil, but there is no significant coverage of her personally, and prior to Khalil's case, hardly any mentions of her at all. One source, lawyerdb.org, scrapes data, and the other is non-independent. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Louisiana, People, and Women

Beauty pageants of Korea

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

This is by and large a compilation of unreferenced statistics that becomes both duplicative of existing pageant articles and a WP:INDISCRIMINATE coatrack for other trivia. Many debates over massive lists of pageant placements like this have occurred and consensus is that they should not exist. See history at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania at major beauty pageants, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus at major beauty pageants, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark at major beauty pageants, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants for examples where dozens of such articles were deleted. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nom rationale here, as this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia which is a violation of WP:NOT. Let'srun (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Lists, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raigarh (1689)

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

Another failed redirect, later contested by the author of the article. My reasoning is- why doesn't this have coverage around the battle itself? There's no need for aftermath without a substantial coverage of "Battle". Shakakarta (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, and Maharashtra. Shakakarta (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage found in reliable sources. More likely rename the article to "Siege of Raigarh" as it is well more known as this event in the books [22][23][24][25]. I suspect a POV forked attempt by the proposer to eliminate the battles that was lost by the Marathas. Hionsa (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely citing sources won't work, they don't give coverage beyond a few 2-4 lines. Do you even understand what "POV fork" means? Visit WP:POVFORK. Shakakarta (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hionsa, meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raigarh (1703–1704)

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

My reason is that the article receives no coverage beyond two lines in Jacques Tony's source, and doesn't pass WP:NEVENT. It remained a stub for years with no improvement at all. Shakakarta (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, and Maharashtra. Shakakarta (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage Hionsa (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Midnapur (1746)

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

reason-

Is this even a battle? Mir Jafar won a decisive battle against Mir Habib. That's all I found for this conflict. No coverage as previously deemed by redirects [26]. Moreover the article was created by a sock who had a history of creating messy articles. Shakakarta (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, Bangladesh, India, Bihar, and West Bengal. Shakakarta (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little or no significance for an article. Hionsa (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as the main section "battle" part of this article is very short so the necessary parts can be easily merged within any article related to this subject. And notably this article is also created by a sock as well. Imwin567 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Paranda

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

Barely had coverage. Not more than 2-3 lines of coverage. No information of how this "Battle of Paranda" went through, clearly not salvageable. Shakakarta (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, Delhi, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Shakakarta (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add contents to Rajaram I and Bidar Bakht. According to sources, the battle took place 4 miles after the Parenda fort.Hionsa (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that it is likely unsalageable so 1st choice Delete: However it would seem this would be a good candidate for 2nd choice ATD, Merge: to Maratha Confederacy which the subject is part of, and 3rd choice merge to Rajaram I.

Samad Khan's expedition against the Sikhs

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

There is no significant coverage for the battle in the sources.

Surinder Singh Johar (2002) only provides a paragraph worth of coverage to the actual conflict. Same thing with Kharak Singh (1996), Harbans Singh (1994), G.S. Chhabra (1960) and Surjit Singh Gandhi (1999). The sources do not consider this conflict as a standalone event or even call it by the name it is created under, they discuss it in the broader context of conflict between Mughals and Sikhs. This topic therefore fails WP:N and WP:GNG. The relevant parts can be covered at Nawab Kapur Singh. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sikhism and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with most creations by this editor, this article is taking an excerpt from a broader history and spinning it into a standalone article with no substance. It is also full of verifiability issues. The history of the Mughal-Sikh wars is long and complex, and warrants spinoff articles in some cases, but this isn't one such; all the information here that from good sources can be covered without difficulty in broader articles, such as Nawab Kapur Singh and Zakariya Khan. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Against Depression

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

This is an WP:ESSAY full of WP:OR. I prodded, which was endorsed by another editor, which was contested without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Germany, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Canada, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 05:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Svartner and nominator —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dive Studios

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

Was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIVE Studios. G4 was declined, so bringing it back for discussion. Currently has zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources (one of them does not even mention the subject). Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was the admin which declined the speedy, based on sources varying from the original process. I'm unimpressed with sources applied and my reasonable BEFORE finds nothing better on the web. Run-of-the-mill applies. Happy to see improvement, but now it's still an A7, so far as I can see. BusterD (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mack (restaurateur)

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

I cannot find significant coverage on the person, but only on his family, and projects (resorts, hotels, etc) he is involved. Not sufficient media coverage for general notability for people. Unicorbia (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 12 April 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. "Restaurantguide 2025: Thomas Mack ist internationaler Botschafter" [Restaurant Guide 2025: Thomas Mack is an international ambassador]. Falstaff [zh] (in German). 2024-12-02. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Thomas Mack kennt das Food-&-Beverage-Geschäft seit Kindheitstagen. Für sein Taschengeld engagierte sich der jüngste Sohn des Europa-Park-Chefs früh im Familienbetrieb: Er frittierte Pommes, schenkte Getränke aus, half bei Banketts und arbeitete sogar als Nachtportier. Nach seiner Ausbildung an der renommierten Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern, die Mack als Jahrgangsbester abschloss, übernahm er eine zentrale Rolle im Familienunternehmen. Heute verantwortet er das gesamte operative Geschäft des Europa-Parks, einschließlich der 90 Gastronomiebetriebe, 5.800 Hotelbetten und 4.750 Mitarbeiter, die jährlich mehr als sechs Millionen Gäste aus aller Welt betreuen. 2012 eröffnete Mack das Fine-Dining-Restaurant »Ammolite«, das seit zehn Jahren zwei Michelin-Sterne trägt. 2022 folgte das immersive Dinner-Erlebnis »Eatrenalin«."
  From Google Translate: "Thomas Mack has been familiar with the food and beverage business since childhood. The youngest son of the Europa-Park CEO got involved in the family business early on to earn his pocket money: he fried fries, served drinks, helped at banquets, and even worked as a night porter. After completing his training at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne, where Mack graduated top of his class, he assumed a key role in the family business. Today, he is responsible for all of Europa-Park's operations, including its 90 restaurants, 5,800 hotel beds, and 4,750 employees, who serve more than six million guests from all over the world annually. In 2012, Mack opened the fine-dining restaurant "Ammolite," which has held two Michelin stars for ten years. The immersive dining experience "Eatrenalin" followed in 2022."
2. Hofer, Joachim; Buchenau, Martin-W. (2020-01-07). "Wie der Familienunternehmer den Europapark auch im Winter attraktiv halten möchte: Der Diplom-Hotelier und Juniorchef des Europaparks hat gerade erst sein neustes Hotel eröffnet – mit Erfolg. Ein weiteres dürfte schon bald folgen" [How the family entrepreneur wants to keep Europapark attractive in winter: The qualified hotelier and junior manager of Europa-Park has just opened his newest hotel – with great success. Another is expected to follow soon.]. Handelsblatt (in German). Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes: "Sohn Thomas ist für Kost und Logis zuständig, ... Und nicht nur das: Mit dem „Ammolite“ betreibt Thomas Mack in einem der Hotels sogar ein mit zwei Sternen gekröntes Nobelrestaurant. Längst hat Mack bei seinen Ausbauplänen nicht mehr nur Disneyland im Blick oder das Phantasialand. „Unser Mitbewerber ist eher Mallorca denn ein anderer Freizeitpark“, sagt der Absolvent der Schweizer Hotelfachschule in Luzern. 2007 stieg Mack als Prokurist in die Firma ein. Seit 2016 ist der verheiratete Vater von zwei kleinen Kindern als geschäftsführender Gesellschafter für Hotels, Gastronomie sowie das Marketing zuständig. Um die Leute rund ums Jahr in die badische Provinz zu holen, organisieren Macks Mitarbeiter fast jeden Tag eine Veranstaltung – ob die Achterbahnen nun laufen oder nicht. Momentan lädt er die Gäste Abend für Abend zu einer opulenten Dinnershow."
  From Google Translate: "Son Thomas is responsible for food and lodging... And that's not all: With the "Ammolite," Thomas Mack even runs a two-star gourmet restaurant in one of the hotels. Mack's expansion plans have long since moved beyond Disneyland and Phantasialand. "Our competition is more likely to be Mallorca than any other theme park," says the graduate of the Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. Mack joined the company as an authorized signatory in 2007. Since 2016, the married father of two young children has been the managing partner responsible for hotels, gastronomy, and marketing. To attract visitors to the Baden province year-round, Mack's employees organize an event almost every day – whether the roller coasters are running or not. He currently invites guests to an opulent dinner show every evening."
3. Ralph, Owen (2024-04-16). "Thomas Mack: why hospitality matters at Europa-Park Resort. The resort's managing partner knows how to wine, dine and accommodate its six million guests with style". Blooloop. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  Blooloop has editorial oversight. The article notes: "The middle child and younger son of Europa-Park founder Roland Mack, Thomas Mack worked as a teenager in the park’s hotels, cafés, and restaurants. He also interned at other theme parks, hotels, and hospitality businesses. After the success of Europa-Parks’ first two hotels, he was encouraged to study for a degree at the renowned Swiss Hotel Management School in Lucerne. ... Now aged 43, Thomas has been responsible for all the gastronomy, hospitality and entertainment operations at Europa-Park Resort since 2007. In 2016, he was made a managing partner." The article says that he is married to Katja Mack, "the founder and head of Europa-Park's Talent Academy".
4. Neubauer, Dirk (2021-07-10). "Europa-Park-Chefs Michael und Thomas Mack: Mit dem Skateboard in der Bobbahn" [Europa-Park bosses Michael and Thomas Mack: Skateboarding on the bobsleigh track]. Badische Neueste Nachrichten (in German). Archived from the original on 2021-08-05. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "They're mischievous stories, as if Michael and Thomas Mack had watched too many Michel from Lönneberga movies: The two brothers throw chestnuts from Balthasar Castle into the historic garden of Europa-Park. ... Also unforgettable is a competition between the Mack brothers: who could complete the most laps on the then-brand-new Eurosat roller coaster. After lap 34, Michael, the older of the two, gave up. "Thomas won, but he also had a nosebleed.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Thomas Mack to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comstock's

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

COI editing which was first deleted through a prod, then through AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comstock's magazine, although the article was restored through DRV, due to some behavioral issues. However, Oaktree b's analysis of the sourcing holds true. Not seeing enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the main concern is a lack of WP:RS, which I disagree with. The magazine has been covered multiple times in big newspapers like the Sacramento Bee and Sacramento Business Journal, indicated by source 2 and source 7. It's also been covered by smaller papers like the Elko Daily Free Press (source 14) and The Placer Herald (source 12). But because this is Wikipage on a magazine, we should consider WP:NMEDIA for help determining notability. In the sub-section for "Newspapers, magazines and journals," Comstock's meets the first, second, third and fifth criteria. It has won awards (sources 26 and 27), it has a significant history (source 30), it is considered a reliable source as it's articles have been used as citations on about 30 different Wikipages, and it covers a non-trivial niche market, which is the Sacramento metropolitan area (source 1). Comstock's is a member of the California News Publishers Association (source 4), which is criteria 4 of WP:NEWSNOTE. While Comstock's isn't a newspaper, it's unique for a magazine to be a member of a state-wide journalism organization, so that point should count towards notability. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I'm still struggling to find anything outside the Sacramento Business Journal, we have multiple articles from it. Some coverage in the Sacramento Bee and Fresno and Elko newspapers. I guess we have enough to confirm notability; very local/focused coverage, but it extends over many years and a semi-large geographic area. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very !weak keep, I could go either way. If we found better sources, could be a !keep, but I can't find any. Gnews goes for about 30 pages of articles from the magazine itself, then dies off. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The California Digital Newspapers collection links a number of stories from the Roseville Press-Tribune and other local papers. Thus far none of them seem massively important, but the number of mentions indicates a level of significance to the region. Many of the articles discuss Comstock's role as a sponsor of local awards. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In 2024 a feature radio interview with Comstock about the magazine's 35 year anniversary [27] , and Bite Sized Finance podcast episode on same topic.

Sacramento Public Radio marked 20th anniversary with an interview (24 minutes in).

Listed in a number of press and business publication directories: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The public radio links help, keep for sure now. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no evidence of lingering COI issues in the text. Key points such as circulation are sourced to several different independent sources, and a number of media organizations have covered anniversaries and the magazine's role in the community. Sourcing is good. I do think the article could benefit from some trimming, e.g. there is more attention given to the publisher's origin story, the vision that came to her in a dream, etc., than seems appropriate to a Wikipedia article. But that's not a matter for AfD. I see no issues that would warrant deletion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in Sac Bee and Sac Business Journal, multiple items of coverage count as one source each... but that's still solidly two Independent RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

530 (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as only source that is about the song is this rather short, routine "this video just came out" spot from Billboard. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of keeping the page due to the song's history behind it. I do agree however that it is lacking specific sources. If that can be corrected the article deserves to stay. Azuzist (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: As it fails it fails GNG - no significant coverage in most of the sources.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Could not find significant, reliable coverage of the song on its own. Most coverage seems to be about the event of the song's release/re-release to fix mumbling.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybach Music 2

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Should be redirected to its album (Deeper Than Rap). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DirectX plugin

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

Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DirectX#Components. Does not seem to be notable on its own, and is already mentioned on the main DirectX page

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avathuvadi

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

Could not find this town in 2011 census of India. As the census does include villages with small or no population, lack of this town's presence in the census seems to indicate lack of legal recognition for WP:GEOLAND. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and India. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this can be deleted Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank S. Jorga

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

Most of the sources are dedicated solely to the Webid company or are based on interviews and statements. There is no clear notability per Anybio and gng. Unicorbia (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Legend (bodybuilder)

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

Previously soft-deleted for lack of notability. I doubt the topic has since become notable. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Bodybuilding, and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. There's just a slight mention of him in the CBC article which is the only quality source I can consider. Source #4 is dead. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Eren Legend meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to his recognized impact in the bodybuilding community. He has been featured in reputable fitness magazines and websites, with coverage from independent sources discussing his achievements and training insights. His involvement in bodybuilding competitions and contributions to fitness culture further support his notability. Deleting the article would remove a relevant figure from the fitness community, and the existing sources substantiate his presence in the field. Therefore, I believe the article should be kept at least a Biography stubs. Lukadon (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaftel

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show they pass GNG. The two obits are paid spots. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I can find is brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate, and brief quotes from him about the features of his designs. None of this amounts to the significant coverage needed for WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE notability. And his academic position does not have any evidence of WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than a trivial amount of mentions in older architectural magazines [34], book mentions [35]. Clicking on the Gbooks link above brings up many mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link appears from its thumbnail to be a business directory and does not allow me to see more than the thumbnail. Your second is exactly the sort of thing I meant by "brief mentions of him in real estate notices as the architect of a house or housing estate"; I do not think it constitutes in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that if you just click on "Find Sources" on this nomination template, several options are there to find the sources. — Maile (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke and Fire (Sabrina Carpenter song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there was a review of the music video in People, but it doesn't appear to have charted. Ping me if you find anything else. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - same as previous. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per reasons above. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 12:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Channelling Liz here: merge to where? I can't find any studio album where this song was included, and merging to the artist page seems inappropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Evolution (Sabrina Carpenter album), where it was supposed to be the lead track, but was dropped. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Ambani

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.

Upon doing WP:BEFORE, I can only find promotional puff pieces sources that fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and have already been addressed in the discussion such as Talk:Mukesh Ambani#Akash Ambani is now Chairman of Reliance Jio. ZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 12:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Delete, only one source gives fairly WP:SIGCOV, others are written in same style and formatting indicating an effort possibly aimed at creating this page. Mekomo (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources sound promotional and subject has failed to meet WP:ANYBIO.:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle Bash007 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. I note that Wikipedia does not have a standalone article about more notable Mukesh Ambani relative named Anant Ambani. Having one about Akash Ambani is even more meaningless. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is the chairman of JIO which is the largest mobile network operator in India and the third largest mobile network operator in the world with over 46.37 crore (463.78 million) subscribers. Has received lot of coverage due to the fact that he is Chairman of Jio and the claim for notability is based on this. particularly finance and business newspapers have covered him.He is in Time's 100 emerging leaders' list and the only Indian in the list.He also figures in Fortune's '40 Under 40' list of influential people.Added References clearly passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25][reply]

None of the sources provided by you are good enough for meeting GNG. Except the promotional article from SCMP, all of your sources are all from WP:NEWSORGINDIA and have issues that are mentioned there. Most of them are promotional puff pieces, paid advertorials, press releases, and interviews. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are from India's leading news sources and newspapers and they provide indepth coverage about the subject.Hindustan Times,Business Standard,Free Press Journal,Business Line ,The Hindu ,CNBC TV18 ,The Times of India,India Today,Outlook (Indian magazine),GQ (Indian edition),The Financial Express (India),Business Today (India),MoneyControl ,Fortune India etc. Now if you say that we cannot use Indian sources for Indian articles due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA than that issue needs to go WP:RSN as most of the sources are WP:RS .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Prakash, Aryan (29 September 2022). "Akash Ambani is the only Indian in Time Magazine's emerging leaders' list". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "Jio Telecom head Akash Ambani on Time's 100 emerging leaders' list". Business Standard. 28 September 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "Akash Ambani on Time's 100 emerging leaders' list". The Times of India. 28 September 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "Who is Akash Ambani? Know all about the new chairman of Reliance Jio and son of billionaire Mukesh Ambani". Free Press Journal. 28 July 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2022.
^ "Who Is Akash Ambani? 5 Facts About Reliance Jio's New Chairman". NDTV. 28 June 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.
^ "Position of power: Akash Ambani moves from open office to Jio corner room". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Everything you want to know about Akash Ambani, the new chairman of Reliance Jio Infocomm". GQ. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Akash Ambani, chairman, Reliance Jio: Learning the ropes from the best teacher in town". The Financial Express (India). Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Reliance empire succession: what to know about Akash Ambani, from his support of Mumbai Indians, Ivy League education to love of luxury cars". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Inheritors of Reliance Empire:Know Everything about Akash and Isha Ambani". Outlook. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Akash Ambani: Meet the new Chairman of Reliance Jio". Hindu Businessline. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Akash Ambani Appointed as Reliance's Chairman, All you Need to Know About Him". India Today. Retrieved 19 July 2022.
^ "Isha, Akash Ambani, Ghazal Alagh in Hurun's under-35 list of entrepreneurs: Check list here". Hindustan Times. 26 September 2024. Retrieved 30 September 2024.
^ "Akash Ambani: A look at the new Reliance Jio chief's journey with RIL's telecom arm". Moneycontrol. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 30 September 2024.
^ "Akash Ambani". Fortune India. 15 October 2024. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ Sengupta, Trisha (1 March 2025). "Akash Ambani on work-life balance: Jio boss opens up about working for 12 hours, thanks wife Shloka for understanding". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "Meet Akash Ambani, the eldest son of Mukesh Ambani & the man behind Reliance Jio: Know about his education, net worth & more". Financialexpress. 2 June 2023. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "I don't think about work by number of hours, but quality of work done daily: Reliance Jio Infocomm chairman Akash Ambani". The Hindu. 1 March 2025. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "'Doors of Jio campus are open for anyone who would like to visit': Akash Ambani". Moneycontrol. 1 March 2025. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ Anand, Vijay (1 March 2025). "Akash Ambani says JioBrain, Cloud PC application will launch soon". CNBCTV18. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ The Hindu Bureau (3 April 2025). "Akash Ambani prays at Lord Venkateswara temple in Tirumala". The Hindu. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ Misra, Apoorva (1 March 2025). "Built Across 500 Acres, World-Class Sporting Facilities: Akash Ambani Shares Details Of Jio Campus". News18. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "Reliance Jio Chairman Akash Ambani wants Indian data to be stored locally". The Economic Times. 15 October 2024. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "Isha, Akash Ambani, Byju Raveendran debut on Fortune's '40 Under 40' influencer list". The Times of India. 2 September 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2025.
^ "India will have an even better record with 6G: Jio Chairman Akash Ambani at ITUWTSA 2024". Business Today. 15 October 2024. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

Delete per nom. It will require at least 4 reliable sources, independent of the subject, that have given significant coverage. I see none right now. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Walsh (tennis)

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

This tennis player never played an ATP Tour level, Grand Slam or Davis Cup match, there are no references on this article and when I searched I found only very brief, passing mentions usually in results lists and one story on the University of Bath website about his doubles partner which mentioned they played together but nothing substantial about him. I therefore believe this article fails GNG and SIGCOV guidelines and should be deleted. I would have Prodded it but a check of the edit history reveals it was Prodded in 2015 and deProdded using what I think are now defunct criteria. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Tennis, and United Kingdom. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenger doubles title is of a high enough level to meet WP:NTENNIS. My search for sources has found a small bio at [36], but his relatively common name is polluting my search results with entries about other people. Iffy★Chat -- 13:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may be missing something (and I apologise if I am) but the link goes to a diary style article about an under 14s event that, yes mentions Mr Walsh, but is written by one of his fellow 14 year old teammates. Also having a common name does not give you a pass to say the article should exist. How about adding the word tennis to your search? I did so and, as I stated, discovered routine match results and the aforementioned university story about his doubles partner. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source I found has a few biographical details in the bottom right which si more than you get from a lot of WP:ROUTINE coverage. I haven't !voted yet as you opened this AfD only a few hours ago and I want to spend more time looking for sources. Iffy★Chat -- 15:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator that there is a lack of significant coverage to establish notability as most mentions are brief. Note that WP:NTENNIS is saying that people who reach achieve in one of the 5 categories listedare likely to have coverage that meets notability guidelines, not that the achievement itself indicates notability.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, as a comment, I'm not convinced winning a challenger tournament is a good indicator of whether significant, non-routine coverage would exist for a player.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. If news sources appears, I'll change the vote. Svartner (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Faith, Hope

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Was a soft delete back in 2022, recently undeleted without improvement. 3 of the 4 sources in the article do not even mention the subject. I'll quote the previous nominator's (Vacant0) rationale, since it still applies: "I've only found passing mentions such as: attendance of a protest during the 2022 North Kosovo crisis, announcement that they will take part in the 2022 Belgrade City Assembly election (they ended up placing second to last with only 5,000 votes), an anti-government event that was organized by its leader (Nemanja Šarović) and the announcement that Šarović formed this movement. Additionally, this movement has not been represented in any legislature since its foundation, and it seems to entirely be focused on the actions and announcements of its leader (its facebook page can be also seen as proof of this besides these sources that I've listed)." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nemanja Šarović: The movement has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Its activities are mostly tied to its leader Šarović. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote/Comment: The page was undeleted at my request, and my motivation for wanting it restored was largely technical. (Before yesterday, the Nemanja Šarović page included a link to the entry for "Love, Faith, Hope" on the Serbian language wiki; this struck me as bad form if restoring the English language page was an option.) I've just undertaken a rewrite of the page, adding some information about the movement's failed 2022 campaign in Belgrade and its non-campaigns in 2023 and 2024, as well as mentioning Šarović's role with KTV Zrenjanin. My view is that the increased media spotlight on Šarović in recent months has likely pushed the party over the threshold of notability, though I won't object if the consensus is to delete or merge the page – I'd just request that people review the page in its current form before finalizing their decision. CJCurrie (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Meyers

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

U.S. military officer, known for being relieved of command of the U.S. base in Greenland for apparently political reasons. But that is the only context in which I can find media coverage of her, making this a WP:BLP1E case. The article is also about essentially nothing else but that incident. Said incident is already covered in about the same length at Pituffik Space Base, to which this title could be redirected. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Politics, and United States of America. Sandstein 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failed GNG, weak sources as most of the sources are ot reliable, independent. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia and isn't worth the space it takes up. This was a very minor newsflash but it is so over and nobody cares. 204.111.161.248 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some coverage found about the email [37], [38], [39], [40]. I suppose this could also be mentioned in an article about the base, I'm not sure the "email incident" would be notable enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Designbox

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

Non-notable software; can't find any SIGCOV besides a few trivial mentions ([41], [42]). Deproded in 2010 without explanation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, has been without sources since it was created and still nothing indicating its notability. Sources in the article are primary to the subject. Mekomo (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Burdwan

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

Other than the single short blurb in the source in the article, I cannot find any other in-depth information about this battle. Many mentions, most of which are mirrors of this Wiki article, but nothing in-depth. Contested redirect. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Passing mentions and nothing more than that, I had redirected previously but was reverted. Given its meagre notability, this is unsalvageable. Shakakarta (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fire (Kids See Ghosts song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chart performance does not indicate notability, no awards or honors, not recorded by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Moreover, mostly album reviews support the article, not a single independent source talking only about the song itself. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the song has received significant coverage despite a lack of independent sources, having 25 that are relevant to it (not including chart positions). The live performance further constitutes notability because it goes into detail about the setting and the song also charted in six countries, which is a good amount and can help with notability when the previous are all true. --K. Peake 08:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle of Starting Over

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

Fails WP:NSONG; not enough WP:SIGCOV. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strong reviews, and millions of views of the video. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Video views definitely do not pertain to any notability policy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is good. I just saw the other one is now a dead link. This one has two paragraphs and a quote, but that's all I can find. So I agree that it's pretty weak as far as significant coverage. It's confusing because the song is basically a Gold Record. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With no sources about this song, NSONG is not met. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to its album. Video views are not a source for notability. Headline planet is not reliable source and ScreenRant doesn't strike me as reliable either. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 12:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon Fades

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Time (Sabrina Carpenter song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't even chart, nothing noteworthy or impactful on the page, and not notable whatsoever. Maxwell Smart ¹²³³²¹ 12:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad Heroes

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

Fails WP:NSPORT with very limited WP:SIGCOV Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Rugby league, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has just been created. Within the next couple of days, more details and sources will be added. It’s foolish to list it for deletion without giving it time to be completed. OCDD (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be completed in draft space. Draftify Mn1548 (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AGF relist to give User:OCDD more time to work on this, since I don't see a strong consensus for any one outcome yet. However, I will note that OCDD has only made [43] one edit to this page since their !vote. I strongly encourage them to make good on their promise to add more details and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crybaby (SZA song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; no WP:SIGCOV of this song. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale of "no WP:SIGCOV" is baffling; a HotNewHipHop source cited in the article proves otherwise. That aside, there was coverage of this song back when it was still unreleased, starting with the BST Hyde Park teaser (Wonderland magazine, Nylon, Teen Vogue). It was teased again at Lollapalooza 2024, which Rolling Stone covered (although briefly, I will admit). Regardless, all of these sources highlight the lyrics, composition, and/or accompanying visuals (that specified some sort of bug aesthetic), in some form or another. I'd argue these constitute enough SIGCOV for the song. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 19:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single HNHH review is not sufficiently significant coverage, in my view. Without a source that connects those pre-release sources to Crybaby, it’s original and irrelevant as far as establishing the song’s notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Without a source that connects those pre-release sources to Crybaby" I do not know what this means and I am sure no enwiki deletion guideline (or any guideline for that matter) supports this either. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 07:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating what I've said about SIGCOV somewhere else: for an article subject to have SIGCOV, there should be "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." With most of the sources above that is clearly what is happening. And SNGs do not supersede GNG; "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) it meets either the [GNG] or [SNG]", to quote WP:N. Furthermore, there is enough content in this article such that merging it to the album article in a way that would keep the essential, cited information would give the subject undue weight (all this to say that NOPAGE does not apply). Quoting a sample of the references used in the article to show the coverage the song has received:
In Nylon, "After hinting at something new in the works, the SOS singer just shared an ethereal and mysterious clip featuring new music — and an earthy and fresh aesthetic. 'I know you told stories about me,' she croons over a groovy bass line and distant nature sound effects. 'Most of them awful, all of them true. Here's some for you.' In the clip, which appears to be for new track 'Storytime,' a camera pushes through a dark forest before stopping in front of a blue-colored, insect-like creature with long antennae. As it turns out, the bug in question is none other than SZA herself [...] And if there was any doubt about what the visual pivot implied, she confirmed that her long-awaited follow-up is, in fact, coming after playing the 'Storytime' snippet in London. 'New album, you ready?' she shouted to an enthusiastic crowd."

In HotNewHipHop, "Its origins supposedly trace back to a Hyde Park set in London during the summer of this year. Then, it was teased at the end of the full music video for 'Drive' yesterday. Now, the completed version is here, and it's got some great writing and stunning singing, which is what you come to expect from SZA. It finds her taking on her flaws and insecurities and embracing them. Overall, she's faced a lot of pressure throughout her career; something she acknowledges on the first verse. But the way she was able flip the narrative around on her 'Cry Baby' is special. [indicates what the writer believes are 'quotable lyrics']"

In Teen Vogue, "She also teased a snippet of an unreleased track called 'Storytime' during her set and made things official on Instagram by posting a teaser of her forthcoming album featuring the song and mimicking her new set’s aesthetics, ending with a closeup of SZA herself transformed into a bug [...] Fans believe all the teasers are in reference to Lana, which the singer had previously announced as her next album [...] There have been plenty of teasers for the project to date, but her BST performance is the first time the singer has referenced a 'new album' explicitly in a while."

Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the album; as I said in the last AfD, charting at 71 (or 70) in this case isn't terribly notable. Sourcing used is focused on the album as a collection of songs, not about any song in particular. The package of songs/album maybe remembered, but each song barely got critical notice by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elias's rationale above, but also note that the outcome of this AfD nom is potentially dependent on outcome of the ongoing RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music). Flip^and Flopped ツ 02:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Was a proper WP:BEFORE actually done on this? There are three song nominations in 3 minutes from Zanahary, not to mention another 10ish in the previous 15, all from exceptionally popular artists. I'm not convinced due diligence is being done on any of these nominations, and it's just putting a burden on other editors.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely other sources going in depth about the song itself:

https://www.stayfreeradioip.com/post/sza-crybaby-meaning-and-review

https://www.hercampus.com/culture/sza-crybaby-lyrics-explained/

These are more blog-like sources and ultimately may be deemed unreliable, but I would expect them to give some pause for reading between nominations. Considering WP:PRESERVE quickly nominating a bunch of articles based on NSONG should not be a first resort. Start by tagging the articles at least, and if nothing changes come back and then nominate for deletion. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't seem reliable at all. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great and Powerful Trixie

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

Not enough in-depth coverage and no scholarly discussions of this character. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakin' It 4 Daddy

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

Fails WP:NSONG; is not the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Should be redirected to album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent album. Only four album reviews, with one sentence each dedicated to the song. Also artists self promo. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to parent album. Having trouble even finding reliable reviews of the album + nothing in depth about the song itself. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animales

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Found this two sources Hype Beast and The BoomBox. They only mention the release of the song. They can be used to support its release as a promotional single on the parental album. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 11:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Minimal sources, nothing in depth. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dijon Carruthers

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

Nothing but mentions. No in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Restoring the redirect as an ATD would probably be the best course. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krešimir Luetić

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

Croatian men's footballer who spent his entire career in lower levels without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Two secondary sources I found were Dalmatinski Nogomet articles from 2022 and 2024, both of which are passing mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Incident isn't notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The article meets the notability criteria under WP:EVENT and WP:NOTE. The Gwalior Khasgi Bazar, Kala Gopal Apartment fire has been covered in-depth by multiple reliable, independent sources, including national and regional media (Assam Tribune, Daijiworld, Wikipedia-cited articles) which reported not only the fire but also the legal aftermath, public safety discussions, and community impact which makes it suitable for WP:RS

This is not a routine local incident — the scale of the event, the involvement of illegally stored hazardous materials, the injury of emergency personnel, and the legal and civic consequences demonstrate lasting notability. The article is verifiable per WP:V and written in a neutral tone in line with WP:NPOV.

Arguments about the article being "recent" WP:RECENT or local WP:LOCAL do not apply here, as the coverage goes well beyond routine reporting and the issues raised are of broader social concern in India.

Unless substantial evidence is presented that this is not a notable event, the article should be retained.

Thanks VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief burst of news coverage does not indicate notability. Recreate if it ever becomes a WP:CASESTUDY. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a notable incident that was widely covered in reliable sources like Dainik Bhaskar, Times Of India, ANI etc . It has received media attention and public support, including statements from elected officials. It meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events and deserves to be retained. Michael Fernandes2007 (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cold in the Earth

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

Book that fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not exactly very notable, but there is two reviews, which should be enough for NBOOK. Review in Publishers Weekly (here) and Brazosport Facts (here). Also seems to be a review in Booklist (Gale A77135100), but it's just a sentence, and the rest is other books. Also possibly one in The Armchair Detective Volume 27, but I can't find a copy online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good alternative might be for us to make a series page and have the individual entries redirect there. I'm a big fan of having series pages as opposed to individual book entries unless the books are exceptionally notable, like Twilight or ASOIAF/AGOT. If I have time, I'll try to make a page for this, but if anyone else wants to tackle this, feel free. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Party Favor (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its EP. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gold or Silver certified song in multiple countries. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What notability guideline is this from? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:47, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NALBUM#3 says exactly this. Note that it is under the heading "Recordings", which includes singles. I am also voting to keep. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into parent EP Don't Smile at Me. Taking into consideration the sources and everything else it could make a nice paragraph. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowfield Stud

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

Fails WP:GNG, is based on 1 primary source and 1 deadlink. Also issues with WP:PROMO and contains wikilinks to irrelevant subjects. Dfadden (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Horse racing, and Australia. Dfadden (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Messara. Apparently Arrowfield is a big operation and very well known in the industry, but everything is founded by John Messara and under the umbrella of "Arrowfield Group Limited" (ARF1), of which Messara is the chairman. There are a LOT of online articles mentioning Arrowfield Stud or -Group, mostly brief mentions as the breeder or owner of this or that horse, but Messara is the main star—searches for any of these names return many quotes by Messara from press inquiries and interviews. Messara seems well-known and well-reputed within the thoroughbred breeding and racing industries in Australia.
Sample search results:
- Thoroughbred Daily News: Arrowfield Stud 645 hits, Arrowfield Group 75 hits, John Messara 287 hits
- Breednet page links to high-dollar sales
- Advertorial in Equestrian Hub

Arrowfield is also the sponsor of a race which has its own wiki-article: Arrowfield Stud Plate. "Arrowfield Stud" appears in 60 wiki articles, at least 18 of which wikilink directly to Arrowfield Stud.

I couldn't find any comprehensive coverage on the stud itself except for articles interviewing Messara (interviews rank as primary sources) but that doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I didn't find any. The John Messara article isn't too long that it couldn't host "Arrowfield" content and redirect all the company names to it. All of the related articles (including the stallion articles) have been edited by likely-COI editors and probably need cleaning up, not deleting.

▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article needs cleaned up and expanded with pertinent references. Just because they don't exist right now doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. If the trend is to start deleting articles just because they are stubs then the direction of notice should be for the project to consider improving it. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe so, but no new refs have been added to this article since 2013 and there have been many edits since, including editors who have questioned its notability and referencing issues (see here and [44] edit summaries) Do we keep it for another 12 years in the hope someone eventually fixes it? It also appears that the most recent active contributors may have a WP:COI and currently the only working reference is the farm's own website. My concerns are not just about notability but also about WP:PROMO.
Dfadden (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerable (Selena Gomez song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no revelant sources to support the song on its own. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rare (Selena Gomez album). Has received coverage independent of the album at Glamour, Business Insider, Time, but coverage can probably adequately be incorporated in the album article as I don't see this article's body being more than 4 paragraphs long. Heartfox (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Top 20 song on two charts, and three reviews of at least a full sentence, indicating significant coverage. I'm not opposed to a merger. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Bearian, The song entered charts in different countries and was featured in reliable sources like Time, Business Insider, and Glamour. Even if the article is short, it meets WP:NSONG with independent and relevant coverage. 06:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

After Midnight (Chappell Roan song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG; should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I believe 1, 2, 3 have more than trivial mentions, and along with the other sources used in the article, allow for a reasonably detailed article. Medxvo (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSONG is explicit that album reviews do not establish notability for songs. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of these sources are track rankings, not album reviews. Per WP:GNG "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". An article has to meet either GNG or NSONG, even though it meets NSONG in my opinion for having a reasonably detailed article and two certifications. Medxvo (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Full-album track rankings are definitely album reviews. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They still have more than trivial mentions, which should meet WP:GNG. Medxvo (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question I agree with Medxvo that the article passes WP:GNG insofar as it has "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". However, I also simultaneously agree with Zanahary that this fails WP:NSONG. I think there is an inherent conflict between WP:GNG and WP:NSONG here because multiple instances of in-depth, detailed discussion within album reviews clearly passes the plain language of WP:GNG, but also clearly fail the specific criteria in WP:NSONG. I'm inclined to lean towards a keep vote because WP:GNG says either its language or the subject-specific notability policy can both work, but for them to be basically directly contradictory seems odd. Can anyone provide insight about which one governs - has this issue been discussed by the community in the past? Does this merit an RFC or a modification to these criteria to avoid such a blatant contradiction? Flip^and Flopped ツ 05:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consulting other AfD noms, I see some evidence from prior AfDs that the community has interpreted WP:GNG to save the article even when WP:NSONG is not met; see e.g. this 2024 AfD to that effect. In the absence of an RFC clarifying otherwise, I say Keep per WP:GNG's statement that "the article can meet either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" (emphasis added). Flip^and Flopped ツ 17:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV: there are plenty of reviews that more than name-check the song. As I've said before, mixed reviews are the best way of ascertaining the significance for a book, song, or play. The Pitchfork and Buzzfeed reviews for this single are illustrative of this phenomenon. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent album. The album reviews don't write more than a sentence about the song. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purves

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

After removing all the middle names and demoting the partial matches to See also, there are only two entries left, the surname being the obvious primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article even started out that way: Special:Permalink/191574737. The other article began as a self-contradictory page about some claimed noble family: Special:Permalink/575056908. (It cannot have both originated in Normandy and in Scotland in two different centuries.) The content that was sent over there could be brought back here and this page be given its original purpose back. Uncle G (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move Purves (surname) to Purves, and with a hatnote to the place. Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move Purves (surname) to Purves, quashing the existing page, per Boleyn. BD2412 T 22:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor (juggling)

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

There are no decent sources for this that I saw, certainly no reliable/acceptable ones, and none are included in the article, which is just a bunch of OR. Who knows what that book is, but "Flaming Arrow Press" is not much of a publisher. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least it didn't have scantily clad manga figures on the cover. But it was spiral bound and illustrated with a cartoon figure. ☺ Having researched Meteor hammer (AfD discussion) and come across no juggling sources at all, I am forgoing doing the same research twice. Flaming Arrow Press was an imprint of Eric Bagai's Foreworks publishing in Portland in the 20th century according to publishing directories. Eric Bagai died in 2022, the Foreworks WWW site is a memorial to xem, and the erstwhile Foreworks book on backgammon is nowadays self-published by its author Jeremy Paul Bagai as Fortuitous Press.
The nail in the coffin for this article is that the "more good info" added by edits such as Special:Diff/637233083 comes not from the source cited, which is a sales catalogue entry and says no such thing at all, but word-for-word from what Wikipedia's meteor hammer article said at the time: Special:Permalink/635843518.
So we have simply doubled-up the fantasy, here.
Uncle G (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor hammer

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

There are no decent sources for this that I saw, certainly no reliable/acceptable ones, and none are included in the article, which is just a bunch of OR. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked under the purported Chinese name. The Chinese book of C# programming, using a martial arts computer game as an example, that turned up early in the results was not a source. But it was in amongst page after page of books with scantily clad manga figures on the covers that were definitely not sources. I don't know what you have stumbled upon, Drmies, but the books results tell me that it is fantasy and not reality. Yes, I bloody well am judging said books by their covers.
Checking the article talk page I see that people have challenged this for being video game manual fantasy since 2006. Checking the edit history I see that it has been variously sourced to Everything2, and exemplifed by counterfactuals such as the Kill Bill movie series and — Yes. — by anime. The zh:流星錘] article has just two discoverable sources: ISBN 7500060874 I have no access to, although from the citation in that article it seems that it is as suspect a source as the only source cited in this article back in its 2005 incarnation, and ISBN 9789866712210 is explicitly a book of fantasy weapons from a Taiwanese publisher of fantasy books.
So it looks like Wikipedia has been promoting fantasy as fact for 20 years, again.
Uncle G (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this: I checked out the images. One is a picture created by a user who appears to be as historical arms enthusiast. The others stem from Flickr, where a private collector named Gary Todd has uploaded images of his collection.

Considering that Todd apparently owns a whole pile of these weapons, you'd think we would have at least one image from a museum collection and/or verified by a historian.

Now there are apparently real historical illustrations of this weapon: https://theravenswoodacademy.com/new-page-69

Not that that by itself would be sufficient for an article. Cortador (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, delete unless credible sourcing can be shown. Cortador (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. English-language sources:
  1. "Wushu Weapons in Common Use". Chinese Olympic Committee. 2003-11-27. Archived from the original on 2004-07-14. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
    This source has been linked since the day the article was created in 2005. The article notes: "The meteor hammer is derived from a kind of hunting weapon of remote times. It consists of either a five-metre-long rope with one hammer at one end, or a two-metre-long rope with one hammer at each end. The hammer is made of bronze and is as big as a duck's egg. A skilful performer can have the rope wrap around his/her neck, chest and back, shoulder and elbow, wrist, legs, feet or waist before unwrapping it to release the hammer with a powerful jerk of the body. In this way, the hammer shoots forth quickly like a meteor, making a deadly impact on the target."
  2. Huang, Fuhua; Fan, Hong, eds. (2019). A History of Chinese Martial Arts. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-64558-5. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The meteor hammer was a type of soft weapon. From ancient times, people tied stones to rattans for hunting, which was an early form of the meteor hammer. The Legends, a collection of short stories, document that a Kunlun slave Mo Le killed vicious dogs with the meteor hammer for his master in the Tang dynasty. 122 Another similar type of these soft weapons in this period was the rope-dart, a sharp metal head tied to a rope."
  3. Wang, Guangxi (2012). Chinese Kung Fu. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-521-18664-3. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The meteor hammer is composed of an iron hammer and a long rope. The iron hammers are usually in the shape of a ball, melon or a ball with sharp spikes, and weigh 1.5 to 2.5kg."
2. Chinese-language sources:
  1. Chang, Zonglin 常宗林; Li, Xukui 李旭奎; Yang, Enhua 杨恩华; Wang, Xiyan 王锡艳; Yu, Jing 于静; Xu, Xu 许旭, eds. (2006). 中国文化导读 [Aspect of Chinese Culture] (in Chinese). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-7-302-12632-4. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "流星锤 meteor hammer"
  2. Ding, Sudong 丁苏东 (2003). ""流星锤"之研究" [Research on "Meteor Hammer"]. 上海体育大学学报 [Journal of Shanghai University of Sport] (in Chinese) (6). doi:10.16099/j.cnki.jsus.2003.06.026. ISSN 2097-3799. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via CNKI.
    The abstract notes: "以史料为依据,对“流星锤”的起源及历史演变进行综合分析和探讨。并对流星锤在演练过程中所表现出的动作的连贯性、缠身的巧妙性、打出的突发隐蔽性三个特点,圆周运动、直线运动和弧线运动三种运动轨迹以及流星锤和绳标之间的区别加以论述。"
    From Google Translate: "Based on historical data, this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis and discussion on the origin and historical evolution of "Meteor Hammer". It also discusses the three characteristics of the meteor hammer in the process of practice: the continuity of action, the cleverness of entanglement, and the suddenness and concealment of the attack, the three movement trajectories of circular motion, linear motion and arc motion, and the difference between the meteor hammer and the rope mark."
  3. Su, Jiguang 宿继光 (2007). ""流星锤"传播策略研究" [Research on the Communication Strategy of "Meteor Hammer"]. 武术研究 [Wushu Studies] (in Chinese) (10). doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-5643.2007.10.014. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Wanfang Data [zh].
    The abstract notes: "文章根据"流星锤"技术特点,基于"流星锤"的发展现状,对"流星锤"发展传播的策略进行了研究,尝试性地制定出合理可行的传播方案.本研究的目的在于避免濒危武术拳种的灭亡,将现代科学技术与传统武术有机结合,通过"流星锤"的个案研究为传统武术的发展提供借鉴,寻找出一条适合传统武术发展的道路,使传统武术在发展过程中突破陈规,与时俱进,提高传播效率,造福人类社会,增加科技含量,立足于世界体育之林."
    From Google Translate: "Based on the technical characteristics of "Meteor Hammer" and the current development status of "Meteor Hammer", this paper studies the development and communication strategy of "Meteor Hammer" and tries to formulate a reasonable and feasible communication plan. The purpose of this study is to avoid the extinction of endangered martial arts, organically combine modern science and technology with traditional martial arts, and provide reference for the development of traditional martial arts through the case study of "Meteor Hammer", find a path suitable for the development of traditional martial arts, so that traditional martial arts can break through the old rules in the process of development, keep pace with the times, improve communication efficiency, benefit human society, increase scientific and technological content, and gain a foothold in the world of sports."
  4. Ding, Sudong 丁苏东 (1999). ""流星锤"的起源及历史演变" [The Origin and Evolvement of "Meteor Hammer"]. 体育学研究 [Journal of Sports Research] (in Chinese) (30). ISSN 2096-5656. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Wanfang Data [zh].
    The abstract notes: "以大量史料为依据,对"流星锤"的起源及历史演变进行综合分析和探讨."流星锤"起源于原始社会旧石器时代狩猎工具的"飞石索".在新石器时代中晚期,逐步用于练武活动和战争,而成为真正意义上的"流星锤".在明清武术鼎盛时期,"流星锤"的演练套路已趋成熟,并得到了极大的发展"
    From Google Translate: "Based on a large amount of historical data, this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis and discussion on the origin and historical evolution of "Meteor Hammer". "Meteor Hammer" originated from the "flying stone rope" hunting tool of the Paleolithic Age in primitive society. In the middle and late Neolithic Age, it was gradually used for martial arts training and war, and became a "meteor hammer" in the true sense. During the heyday of martial arts in the Ming and Qing Dynasties, the practice routines of "Meteor Hammer" had matured and had been greatly developed"
  5. Li, Wenbo 李文博; Li, Dan 李聃 (2017). "传统器械流星锤挂肘动作的技术分析" [Technical Analysis of the Elbow Hanging Movement of the Traditional Weapon Meteor Hammer]. 运动 [Sport] (in Chinese) (12). doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-151x.2017.12.080. ISSN 1674-151X. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Wanfang Data [zh].
    The abstract notes: "流星锤是我国古兵暗器之一,它历史悠久,源远流长.最早起源于原始社会狩猎工具的飞石索,经各朝代的演变逐渐形成了现代的流星锤.本文通过文献资料法、图像采集法、比较分析法等研究方法,对流星锤项目核心典型动作挂肘技术进行研究,系统地对流星锤挂肘动作进行分析、分类与分解,并制订出5种学习和提高挂肘动作的练习方法.通过对传统器械流星锤挂肘动作的技术分析,可以大幅度提高流星锤套路的整体质量、击打的准确度及为以后的教学与训练提供有利地参考,以期为流星锤今后更好地发展提供理论支持."
    From Google Translate: "Meteor Hammer is one of the ancient hidden weapons in my country, and it has a long history. It originated from the flying stone rope of the hunting tool in primitive society, and gradually formed the modern meteor hammer through the evolution of various dynasties. This paper studies the elbow hanging technology of the core typical action of the meteor hammer project through the research methods of literature data method, image acquisition method, comparative analysis method, etc., and systematically analyzes the meteor hammer elbow hanging movement. Analyze, classify and decompose, and formulate 5 training methods for learning and improving the elbow hanging action. Through the technical analysis of the traditional weapon meteor hammer elbow hanging action, the overall quality of the meteor hammer routine and the accuracy of the strike can be greatly improved, and a favorable reference can be provided for future teaching and training, in order to provide theoretical support for the better development of the meteor hammer in the future."
  6. Wang, Xiaowen 王晓雯; Liu, Qinghua 刘清华; Li, Yanjun 李艳君; Xu, Jialu 许嘉璐; Gu, Kaikai 谷凯凯; Xu, Zhaohui 徐朝晖 (2020). "传统武术软器械流星锤十字披红动作技术分析" [Technical Analysis of Traditional Martial Arts Soft Weapon: Meteor Hammer "Cross Red-Draping" Movement]. 武术研究 [Wushu Studies] (in Chinese) (5). doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-5643.2020.05.027. ISSN 2096-1839. Archived from the original on 2025-04-13. Retrieved 2025-04-13 – via Wanfang Data [zh].
    The abstract notes: "流星锤起源于古代原始社会,旧石器时期狩猎工具的飞石索,到如今逐渐演变成为流星锤,是中华武术传统软器械之一.十字披红为流星锤套路当中上肢缠绕类的核心技法,其动作有较难的身体协调性和技巧性.通过文献资料法、图像采集法、技术分析法,对传统武术软器械流星锤十字披红的动作进行分析,提供训练方法.通过对传统武术软器械流星锤十字披红动作的技术分析,为习练者提供正确的技术动作,提高流星锤套路的质量和水平,提供有力的参考."
    From Google Translate: "Meteor hammer originated in ancient primitive society. The flying stone rope used as hunting tools in the Paleolithic Age has gradually evolved into a meteor hammer, which is one of the traditional soft weapons of Chinese martial arts. The cross-shaped red is the core technique of the upper limb entanglement in the meteor hammer routine, and its movements have difficult body coordination and skills. Through the literature method, image acquisition method, and technical analysis method, the movement of the traditional martial arts soft weapon meteor hammer cross-shaped red is analyzed, and training methods are provided. Through the technical analysis of the traditional martial arts soft weapon meteor hammer cross-shaped red movement, the correct technical movements are provided for practitioners, the quality and level of the meteor hammer routine are improved, and a powerful reference is provided."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow meteor hammer simplified Chinese: 流星锤; traditional Chinese: 流星錘; pinyin: liúxīng chuí to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buumba Halwand

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

Declined prod. Sources 2-6 are all databases or results listing. The first book source is actually a small 1 line mention. No SIGCOV exists to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where the subject is mentioned. Fails GNG due to no SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider my !vote if sources come up, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 14:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST. I expanded the article with a few new WP:RS sources I found the day before it was nominated. Zambia is a notoriously difficult country to research, and there is broadly speaking a systemic bias against African countries and people that affects the level of coverage available to us. Subject was the top marathon runner from his country so coverage should exist in Zambian newspaper sources from the era as soon as they are available to us. --Habst (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. The article is already a stub anyway, and the subject performed at an international level (and top of his country) and covered in reliable sources. Although the coverage is not significant, pulled together, they demonstrate notability, and at the very least, passed our BASIC test. I do agree with Habst about getting sources for some African countries especially for the older generation whose achievements would have been covered in their local press but have not been digitized yet for the internet age, and only available in their local archives. I experienced a similar problem many years ago when researching a particular individual and had to make a personal visit to the local archive and the media house's archive. This is why I'm always more lenient when it concerns much older African figures because most of the local African coverage at the time have not been digitised yet. Some of these African media houses (especially older ones) are aware of this and are working to digitize them with the limited resources they have, but just not fast enough. I'm therefore more sympathetic to the older generation who contributed a lot but have not been recognised due to these technical issues. However, for younger African generation, I'm less lenient because they are part of the internet age and getting coverage shouldn't be difficult. Tamsier (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zambia at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics. It seems we are all agreed that there is insufficient sourcing to meet GNG/BASIC. Tamsier cites BASIC, but by saying the coverage is "not significant", it is evident that we do not, in fact, reach BASIC, which states it is met where the subject received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. What we have clearly falls short for several reasons. An IAR case is being made that sources may exist in undigitised newspaper archives. Setting aside that any such coverage may well be primary, and thus excluded from notability considerations, there is a question as to whether any credence be given to the possibility of such sourcing in establishing notability for article retention. I agree that non English sources, and African sources can be troublesome to locate, but the flaw in the IAR argument is this: if the sources are simply unavailable to any editor, then no editor can write this page. They cannot write it unless and until sources become available, and so we are in the same position as someone we think should be covered, but about whom no sources have yet been published. It does not improve the encyclopaedia to retain an unwritable sub-stub about someone who may or may not meet notability requirements. The Redirect ATD retains the page history, for whatever it's worth. Notability is not met, the artcle can't be written. Deletion is appropriate but a redirect ATD is a suitable alternative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I wrote never mind meant. Individual sources on their own may not be significant for notability, but combined together passes BASIC. In fact, that's what BASIC is mostly about. I didn't realise I have to explain that. However, if my initial statement was not clear enough, my apologies. I hope it's clearer now. Tamsier (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability - from WP:BASIC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an IAR case at all. Wikipedia P&G has always permitted articles to be kept so long as reliable sources indicate coverage existing. For example, it would always be permissible to keep if we had a source saying "He was covered in the 1 January 1900 New York Times front page" even if we don't have access to that article. In this case, instead of our RS saying that explicitly, they say it implicitly, by virtue of communicating his achievements at the Olympics. It's up to us to decide whether or not that indication is sufficient – and by virtue of looking at the European athletes finishing around him like Pat Hooper and Cor Vriend, which both have lots of available coverage, we can determine that a similar amount exists for Halwand but the only difference is the availability.

One other note is that speaking of improving the encyclopedia, Wikipedians in Zambia would be the most likely ones to have access to be able to do that – and considering new Wikipedians in general are less likely to have accounts, it would be much easier for them to improve an existing article than to convert a redirect back to the article (interfaces like the app and mobile editor don't even allow you to do that). --Habst (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this elsewhere. NEXIST does not give a pass to anyone just because there exists some unevidenced hypothetical that sources could exist. Notability requires only that suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world. But they must exist or the subject is not notable. Every Wikipedia page requires secondary sourcing for notability precisely because it is those sources that allow the page to be written. Because of NEXIST, we have some additional subject specific guidelines that allow us to assess whether sources are likely to exist. In this case the SNG is WP:NATH. If a subject meets an SNG, it is usually kept, even if we don't have all the necessary sources, based on the likelihood that sources exist. But here, the subject does not meet NATH. So we don't have the sources, and we don't have the presumption that sources are likely to exist that comes from the SNG. Making a case to keep this anyway says we should ignore GNG/BASIC and we should ignore the consensus of NATH. That is a WP:IAR case. And it is one I reject, because I don't see how maintaining unwritable machine generated and semi-plagiaristic stubs is good for the encyclopaedia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NEXIST does not give a pass to anyone just because there exists some unevidenced hypothetical that sources could exist. Absolutely agree. NEXIST has not been persuasive in these athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler Works

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

Olympia public arts installation with one source. Again, should be simply included on a list of public art installations in the city. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a list this can be redirected to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of public art in Olympia, Washington, as this installation is covered on that page. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 05:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stage School Australia

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

The vast majority in unsourced or primary sourced, so I intended to improve the article but very much struggled to find good secondary sources. The school does not seem to fit notability guidelines. -- NotCharizard ^🗨 02:59, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, Schools, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article lacks strong independent sources and relies mostly on primary or promotional content. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Without significant secondary coverage, notability isn’t established. Pridemanty (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is not a single independent source cited in the article, which appears to be entirely promotional. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Graphic Ultra Modern Girl

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

Fails WP:NSONG; "Illustrate Magazine" piece (the only source cited of which this song is the subject) reads like AI or a child's writing and doesn't appear to be a significant outlet (empty About page); should be redirected to its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 discuss the song in detail within articles. Meets WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Medxvo (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Regardless of the the result of the ongoing RfC discussion about NSONG and GNG, I believe this has received enough coverage to be significant. The stories behind the songs are being covered in reliable sources outside the specific context of album reviews [45].
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Billboard and "Vulture sources are reliable and have a very condense paragraph about the song. Not sure if all the other sources are reliable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mademoiselle Boop

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

Does not meet GNG or ANYBIO. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ENTERTAINER and expand based on the French Wikipedia entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree with Another Believer that this article can be kept and expanded based on the French version. I don't have the cultural knowledge to fully understand whether this passes GNG/ANYBIO, but in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE I think this article can be improved from existing French sources rather than deleted at this time.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:ENT as a notable performer with coverage in local media and presence in French-language sources. Article can be improved by translating and expanding from the French Wikipedia. Enough basis to preserve and develop instead of delete. Pridemanty (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan (drag queen)

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

Does not meet notability criteria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. No notability demonstrated in the present sources. Svartner (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arguably passes WP:CREATIVE because of an international tour. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:CREATIVE? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:15, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

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.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Duarte

(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. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find no sources for this soccer player. What's in the article are primary only. Appears to still be in the minor leagues, so might not have attained enough notice for more media coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSCRIT. No significant coverage in independent sources. The player doesn’t seem notable enough for a separate article. Pridemanty (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson McCracken

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Oregon. Let'srun (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:36, 12 April 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 Procedural keep‎. I have no idea what the nom is talking about here, but these programs are definitely all notable within the history of American TV news and network television, definitely have sources out there, and they didn't even sign this nom either. It's also botched altogether. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 02:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issues and Answers

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

Deprodded with source, but there's still not much out there

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issues and Answers

[d981-1] Prakash, Aryan (29 September 2022). "Akash Ambani is the only Indian in Time Magazine's emerging leaders' list". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[q810-2] "Jio Telecom head Akash Ambani on Time's 100 emerging leaders' list". Business Standard. 28 September 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[u131-3] "Akash Ambani on Time's 100 emerging leaders' list". The Times of India. 28 September 2022. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[4] "Who is Akash Ambani? Know all about the new chairman of Reliance Jio and son of billionaire Mukesh Ambani". Free Press Journal. 28 July 2022. Retrieved 13 July 2022.

[5] "Who Is Akash Ambani? 5 Facts About Reliance Jio's New Chairman". NDTV. 28 June 2022. Retrieved 15 July 2022.

[6] "Position of power: Akash Ambani moves from open office to Jio corner room". Business Standard. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[7] "Everything you want to know about Akash Ambani, the new chairman of Reliance Jio Infocomm". GQ. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[8] "Akash Ambani, chairman, Reliance Jio: Learning the ropes from the best teacher in town". The Financial Express (India). Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[9] "Reliance empire succession: what to know about Akash Ambani, from his support of Mumbai Indians, Ivy League education to love of luxury cars". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[10] "Inheritors of Reliance Empire:Know Everything about Akash and Isha Ambani". Outlook. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[11] "Akash Ambani: Meet the new Chairman of Reliance Jio". Hindu Businessline. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[12] "Akash Ambani Appointed as Reliance's Chairman, All you Need to Know About Him". India Today. Retrieved 19 July 2022.

[c937-13] "Isha, Akash Ambani, Ghazal Alagh in Hurun's under-35 list of entrepreneurs: Check list here". Hindustan Times. 26 September 2024. Retrieved 30 September 2024.

[w609-14] "Akash Ambani: A look at the new Reliance Jio chief's journey with RIL's telecom arm". Moneycontrol. 29 June 2022. Retrieved 30 September 2024.

[t404-15] "Akash Ambani". Fortune India. 15 October 2024. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[o125-16] Sengupta, Trisha (1 March 2025). "Akash Ambani on work-life balance: Jio boss opens up about working for 12 hours, thanks wife Shloka for understanding". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[b331-17] "Meet Akash Ambani, the eldest son of Mukesh Ambani & the man behind Reliance Jio: Know about his education, net worth & more". Financialexpress. 2 June 2023. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[r435-18] "I don't think about work by number of hours, but quality of work done daily: Reliance Jio Infocomm chairman Akash Ambani". The Hindu. 1 March 2025. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[r111-19] "'Doors of Jio campus are open for anyone who would like to visit': Akash Ambani". Moneycontrol. 1 March 2025. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[t391-20] Anand, Vijay (1 March 2025). "Akash Ambani says JioBrain, Cloud PC application will launch soon". CNBCTV18. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[z170-21] The Hindu Bureau (3 April 2025). "Akash Ambani prays at Lord Venkateswara temple in Tirumala". The Hindu. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[v964-22] Misra, Apoorva (1 March 2025). "Built Across 500 Acres, World-Class Sporting Facilities: Akash Ambani Shares Details Of Jio Campus". News18. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[p590-23] "Reliance Jio Chairman Akash Ambani wants Indian data to be stored locally". The Economic Times. 15 October 2024. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[k698-24] "Isha, Akash Ambani, Byju Raveendran debut on Fortune's '40 Under 40' influencer list". The Times of India. 2 September 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[a214-25] "India will have an even better record with 6G: Jio Chairman Akash Ambani at ITUWTSA 2024". Business Today. 15 October 2024. Retrieved 12 April 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]