Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 20	May 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Fusion Engine

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm pretty sure these references are hallucinated, as besides the IGN one, none resolve (the GameSpot one resolves too, but because it's using the ID of a different article). ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hanger 13, the studio that developed it. Masem (t) 17:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that there's anything to merge. The article content fundamentally fails WP:V if the information is cited to sources that don't actually exist. "Fusion Engine" has zero hits in the VG custom search engine. (It has one, but it's not related to this engine). ~ A412 ^talk! 18:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find the references, so unless the creator can come up with them, it appears to fail GNG. It is also troubling and the creator seems disruptive already, so intervention may be necessary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanger 13 or draftify. A new article with forged sources should just not hit mainspace. I would encourage you to just use draftification for these things rather than AFD. MarioGom (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Fusion engine as miscapitalisation. I don't see any value redirecting to Hangar 13, with way too little available to be worth mentioning elsewhere. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Redirect to Fusion engine makes sense. MarioGom (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fusion engine. I added a ref to Mafia III and Mafia: Definitive Edition articles and updated the disambiguation page. Now both Mafia games and Descent 3 have statements about using "Fusion Engine". --Mika1h (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This has been re-opened to get a more clearer consensus on a redirect or merge or else.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4A Engine

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

Article appears too technical to be encyclopedic (e.g. "3,000 tasks per 30ms frame"). Despite the large Eurogamer/Digital Foundry feature, relevance appears largely related to 4A Games. IgelRM (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. IgelRM (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Bowers

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

Regional-level NASCAR driver with no championship wins. Fails to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:WikiProject NASCAR/Standards. Citations are database entries and an obit. Nothing better found on search. — Moriwen (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Idaho. — Moriwen (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Graham

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

Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or Wikipedia:WikiProject_NASCAR/Standards. Regional-level NASCAR driver with no championships. Database sources only. — Moriwen (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Motorsport. — Moriwen (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jude Tanner

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

Doesn't meet GNG. Indication of importance is described as winning a Tony award, among others. This person did not win a Tony award -- their company was one of about 50 companies listed as having a co-producer credit for a production which won a Tony award. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To start the discussion, needs participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeringonza

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

I don't feel very strongly about this one, however it was noted in the recent RM discussion (which I closed) that this article lacks sufficient reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Unfortunately a check of the other two wikis this is on demonstrates a lack of overall sourcing for this topic. This could be deleted, or alternatively redirected to a related topic such as Pig Latin, which seems fairly similar. On the off chance the sourcing is improved while this is listed here, we can always have another RM to discuss the spelling, as it will be relevant at that point. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Spain, and South America. ASUKITE 16:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lack of participation as this discussion awaits a starting argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VOOsport World

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

Fails WP:GNG, sourced to primary sources and database entries. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Belgium. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Luxembourg. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Beavis

AfDs for this article:

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

Second AfD -- the first one reached a Delete concensus. This began as me trying to do a cleanup of sources and to improve the article as per WP:BEFORE but the more I worked in it the more I realized it does not meet WP:N. Sources cited are mostly WP:TRADES or WP:PROMO (in some cases actual straight-up AI SEO spam articles).

Ground News aggregate (duplicate of a UFV source)
Investers Hangout -- Very obvious AI SEO spam article
Testimonial for SEO platform that was being used as a source? This is the only source for the "Publications" section. Testimonials are inherently not independent or credible.
Daily Hive "Branded Content" -- this is a paid advertisement

Most of the articles I can find on this person appear to be the result of intensive SEO efforts rather than genuine significant coverage in independent secondary sources. The secondary sources that I've been able to find only write about him in the context of being the founder of a marketing agency. As detailed in the original AfD, the trades industry awards or "top" listings referenced in the article are not automatically noteriety claims. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. TonySt (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is absolutely PR/vanity spam about a non-notable person. COOLIDICAE🕶 17:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nominator that the mentioned 4 sources are not appropriate, however the remaining sources are OK. For example these sources have enough coverage and don't look like PR or paid placement:

-aldergrovestar.com

-bcbusiness.ca

-sauder.ubc.ca - A university website, can't be paid placement

-alumni.ufv.ca Alumini website, cant be paid

-bcbusiness.ca 30 under 30 This type of coverage can't be paid

-mnbc.ca Award win coverage, can't be paid

Also, the original AFD was in 2022 and the majority of sources cited are after 2022, so that result is irrelevant by now. Rubenpurer (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is a new source I have Found:

Canadian SME Small Business Magazine Page 41-43 Rubenpurer (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we discuss and evaluate the sources sent?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Some coverage [1] and here [2]. Lots of coverage in the Aldergrove Star, that's probably the best one. The article needs a rewrite, badly, but AfD ain't clean up Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Daisy

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

No WP:SIGCOV that I could find so as to meet WP:NFILM. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Ghana. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 18:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per a prior discussion at WP:FILM, it looks like films can redirect to list pages regardless of notability status. We don't currently have a page that is specifically for Ghanian films, so we have a bit of a choice here - we can create List of Ghanaian films of 2024 and have this as the sole entry (and hope that more get added) or we could create a more general page called List of Ghanian films and compile all of the entries there. So far it looks like there are only 70 films with articles so it could be held together there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get more participation here for a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union

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

Article doesn’t cite any article neither it has online coverage. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nepal Revolutionary Students' Union, a.k.a. Nekravisangh, is a major organization. It has declined in the past, but it was the dominant student movement in Bhaktapur for many years. --Soman (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nepal Workers Peasants Party. There is some WP:ROUTINE coverage, especially if you search with the native name. मल्ल (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bagus Ilham

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

Unable to find any coverage satisfying WP:BIO, although it's possible there's something in Indonesian that I'm missing. Player for a second-tier football club; sources are a database entry, a brief article mentioning a transfer, and an instagram post. — Moriwen (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. — Moriwen (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With this, hoping for Engaging Discussion about sources and notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Nepal National Independent Students Union (Sixth) (RJM group)

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

Single source. Neither reliable nor significant. No online coverage about this union. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Schools, and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only 1 source and that is also archived. Agletarang (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ there is some in depth coverage here and independent coverage here and here, there is news coverage of them [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] some of which contain in-depth coverage of the electoral mechanics and factions in the organization. Clearly notable. --hroest 20:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are mistaken. There are other such unions with similar names. Plz make sure you search with exactly same name ( Sixth) RJM group. If you find anything with that particular name , plz let me know. There are many unions with initial name All Nepal National Independent Student Union but here sixth and RJM group is also included which lacks notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, the sources I found indeed seem to be for a similarly named but different organization. ---hroest 11:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rastriya Janamorcha as a new section titled "Youth wing". Yue🌙 05:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable movement. An organization with 59 district branches is not insignificant. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no significant discussion or consensus here yet. The arguments are of keep, delete and merge at 1 each vote after another keep was striked out. No significant mention of policies and their relevance. Discussion sought for a consensus would be whether WP:TOOSOON if there is minor or no notability or should be kept per WP:ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kulovića Street

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

Looks to fail WP:GNG. Not seeing evidence of the street being notable, only things related to it (the siege or buildings on it). Doesn't pass WP:GEOROAD either. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, GNG isn't at zero: [8] [9] but it's also not the strongest. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engaging more participation to reach a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashitha Revolt 1843

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

Fails WP:GNG. No sources on this exist. None of the sources in use in this article support 99% of the text in this article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bro what? The sources are cited, read them, you have no valid reason to issue a speedy deletion. There are multiple sources on this, reported by even contemporary missionaries. Stop excluding the cited sources; which are enough to make the page stay. 2A02:AA1:115D:84B3:ACB2:8E83:1328:5261 (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – how are all the sources fake? DataNomad (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Mercy Catholic Elementary School

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

Non-notable run-of-the-mill elementary school. Only independent coverage cited is a database entry; nothing beyond the school district found on search. Could reasonably redirect to Toronto Catholic District School Board. — Moriwen (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Christianity. — Moriwen (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 18:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Shah railway station

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

No reliable source covers the station, does not meet WP:GNG Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Asia, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Pagès

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

No sources giving significant coverage are on the article and a search has not revealed any WP:SIGCOV in any reliable source. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Carter

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

Upon search, the subject does not seem to be notable enough per WP:GNG. The current references (specifically, from the Canberra Times) seem to be WP:BLP1E, and the rest seem to be primary sources. The article also seems overly promotional, and it also seems that the article creator has a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject with their edit history. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Environment, Oceania, and Australia. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umair (music producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. At first glance there appears to be significant coverage but looking closer you will see that most are not bylined, are from unreliable sources, or just routine coverage or mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1Munti Partylist

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

The organization does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article as of right now. The article creator seems to have a undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and the article seems to contain machine-generated text. If the organization wins any seats in the Philippines 2025 general election, a article about the subject could be made. But as of right now, there's just coverage about the subject and their partylist - with some passing mentions and unreliable sources, and I think it is WP:TOOSOON. There is some independent, reliable coverage - but that's only about the organization's partylist. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Asia, and Philippines. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This party did not win seats in last week's election. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions

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

A sad event, but the victims aren't notable. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and China. Fram (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a rather huge event(Compared to 911 on some occasions), and victims lists are pretty common on the article themselves, just that the article itself likely cannot fit the people. Now, I understand Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but I would say this is about as notable as Lists of victims of the September 11 attacks. Additionally, this list sort of already exists on List of People's Armed Police personnel killed in the line of duty#2010s, and among the casualties is the former deputy chief of the TEDA zone fire brigade.

Additionally, more secondary sources will likely come soon to increase notability, this article was sort of rushed a little bit, as I originally intended for this to simply be a section in the 2015 Tianjin Explosions article. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don´t get the logic. We don´t list the victims for small accidents, as these normally don´t have an article for the event. We don´t lust the victims of truly large events (war, famine, natural disasters) as there are too many, it would be an indiscriminate list, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, take your pick... But for a small group of intermediate events we suddenly have articles to list the victims, even though they aren´t really any different from all these others. Seems completely arbitrary. Fram (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thehistorianisaac ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am reluctant to delete any topic that is the subject of an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Wildlife Defence Force

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

A third article about an organisation lead by the same person and written by the same editor, and with the same issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Ornamental Breeders Association and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutrecul Agroforestry Project for the other two. This one is basically unsourced (neither source mentions the organisation) and I can't find any reliable sources which give significant attention to this one either. Fram (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fram (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrecul Agroforestry Project

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

Article created by the same editor as the one behind the organisation now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African Ornamental Breeders Association, and this project is lead by the same person, Jean Kiala-Inkisi, as that association. And it has the same issues, it completely lacks notability. Whether the "prehistory" (sic) section is about anything notable is hard to tell, but the actual Nutrecul project has after 12 years not gotten any significant attention from reliable, independent sources it seems.[10][11] Fram (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fram (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Ornamental Breeders Association

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

It exists, but it lacks notability, and claims like "more than 200,000 members" are unverifiable. Very few sources even mention it[12], most of them not independent or not reliable (other wikis and so on). Their website[13] has only had a few thousand visitors (bottom of page), their organisations like the "AOBA National Evaluation Shows" and "AOBA International Championships"[14] are not mentioned anywhere[15][16]. This has all the characteristics of a one-man organisation trying to lure sponsors for the website and people willing to buy their imported poultry. It has no actual importance at all it seems. Fram (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Africa, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Fram (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Morris (speedcuber)

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

Frank Morris is just a speedcuber who was fairly active in the early 2000s and got a couple of world records on larger cubes, but aside from that he's definitely not worthy of an article. The only source that isn't his WCA page (which everyone who has competed in a speedcubing competition has) is a link to an interview he did for a radio station, which I definitely don't think makes you notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Yoshikid64 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I searched for sources and found only a passing mention in this Taipei Times article from 2006] apart from the interview the nominator mentions. Fails GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clarke (footgolf)

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

Non-notable footgolf player. The article was AI-generated and included multiple hallucinated citations that have been removed. What's left doesn't support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT; references are affiliated with him (his Facebook or his talent agency), or they are from official leagues and thus also not secondary coverage. I found one instance of WP:SIGCOV in my before search (Daily Record), but the rest of the coverage I found was WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Somerset Academy Canyons

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

Non-notable school, doesnt pass WP:NSCHOOL. The article seems to be AI generated as many others by this user and half of the links are not properly functioning. Overall there isnt a single WP:RS that covers this school either in the article or on Google/Google News. hroest 16:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. hroest 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL and lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fade258 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khole Piza

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

References fail WP:SIRS so article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, and Iraq. UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Skitash (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Idk why my csd was removed for no reason but I still support its deletion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent references that demonstrate the notability. Fade258 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbali Coastal Forest

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

I am not sure this is notable, and even if so, this is primarily AI slop that needs WP:TNTing. GoldRomean (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I agree, there is very little mention in the literature and overall the article is not encyclopedic. --hroest 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought there would be something there in a BEFORE search but this appears to be a resort and estate of some kind that doesn't seem to have the sources to support it. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barabız

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

Article is unclear what this is. Seems like a simple (though incomplete) translation of a foreign word, rather than an actual topic. BEFORE is not finding anything by spelling "Barabız" or "Barabus". ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Russia. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Allen Cohen

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

The only reliable source is a former Forbes contributor (both of the Forbes articles were written by the same lady). The rest are not reliable sources. (Note that Yahoo is a syndication of LatestLY, which is WP:NEWSORGINDIA). 🄻 🄰 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and California. 🄻 🄰 15:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Codava Makkada Coota

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

None of the articles are about the organization, just mentions. Mostly WP:ROTM stuff about events they participated in. (to be fair, please review this version from before I removed some WP:NEWSORGINDIA content). 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Literature, Organizations, Companies, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Jepsen

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

Contested draftification, so here we are. (Why not just let it stay in draft space?) It was draftified as only relying on database sources, and was readded with no valid sources. The only sources are a database and two instances of her name appearing in lists. These are nowhere near significant coverage, cf. WP:SPORTCRIT: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". I could find no other Danish sources in a WP:BEFORE (a language I can read and speak). I'm by no means opposed to it being draftified again, but it then has to go through the AFC process, I think. Geschichte (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the draft submission process was not respected. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article from Spanish before it was unilaterally moved to draftspace. I added more references and moved it back. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Danish language sources. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They too just mention her name among many Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is because the medals were won in team events. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the policy excerpt above. They need individual coverage about their person. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not specifically cover rowing making it somewhat confusing. Compared to other pages in Category:Danish female rowers this article is better sourced so what is the standard? Moondragon21 (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy covers any and all sports. Regardless of sport, people need individual coverage about their person to have an article. Without that, it's not well sourced - in fact, having one reference with individual coverage about their person is the minimum standard. Geschichte (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only translated the article believing that a medal winning world champion in rowing was notable. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done, and as I said in the nomination, I am willing to move it back into draft space. Such a medalist "should" be notable, but then again, it's not our job to decide that, but rather the abundance of in-depth sources... Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine. Would AFC be preferred to using Wikipedia:CXT? Moondragon21 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move to draftspace. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2003 World Rowing Championships. Not enough coverage for stand alone page. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: commenters seem split between redirecting as an ATD and deleting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough significant coverage. Angryapathy (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To generate a clearer consensus on delete or redirect with relevant policies cited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fintilect

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

Non-notable software company. Routine coverage like M&As, renaming, investments, are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. UPE history is another issue. Gheus (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Software, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after article rescue work (again). Any recent UPE work (if that's what it was) had already been reverted by the nominator. Restore former material of historical interest, e.g. OS/2 software as highlighted in the previous AFD. – Fayenatic London 13:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found anything outside of primary sources and routine business announcements. Many sources are "fintech" focused and I tend to view such sources with the same skepticism as crypto focused sites. I haven't found much in the way of notability for the previous iterations of the company either. The sources on the historic article don't seem to meet reliability or notability requirements either. The old page seems like a relic of a more lenient era of wikipedia. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable and does not have wide coverage in RS. Reads like a promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in WWE born outside the United States

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

Seems to be original research and fancruft. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as bundle AFD:

BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. Those lists are just fancruft, out of scope, and catalogue-like. They are not even acceptable/passable as category. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally using these lists today as a refrence 71.43.164.34 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This information is relevant, taking into account the internalization that WWE has had throughout its history. EnglishLuicheto (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Internalization? Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an engagement to reach consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party of Greens

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 14:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Existing political party nominated for deletion? What is this? --ThecentreCZ (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This party had representation in the Czech Parliament, albeit briefly. Of course it's notable, and there are a number of secondary sources on the Czech article. It just needs expansion/translation. Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - the Czech article at cs:Demokratická strana zelených – Za práva zvířat cites 16 references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you see this as a snow keep considering the number of references is no indication of notability, plus the fact that this party has never returned any candidates at an election? C 679 07:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that someone is considering indication of notability? We keeping all parties. This is not living persons. How do you for example see this article Ondřej Štursa as notable with two links? ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties are subject to WP:ORG. There is no Wikipedia policy to have a page on every political party. C 679 11:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "every political party", but it had representation in the Czech parliament. And the Czech article about the same topic has plenty of sources which can be used to expand this one. Jdcooper (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The supposed representation in Parliament came from "two Green MPs, Olga Zubová and Věra Jakubková". In Norway at least, it is impossible to formally switch parties during a term, so if you leave your party, you become independent. If this is the case in CZ as well, then the party was not formally represented in Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Christian Democratic Politics

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

No evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C 679 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Czech Republic. C 679 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KDU-ČSL as WP:ATD. I'm aware there are no reliable sources here yet, but a redirect is appropriate, and the parent article doesn't need any more than a cursory mention which can easily be sourced. Jdcooper (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, found a source mentioning the institute. Not sufficient to support a standalone article, but confirms that it exists and what it is, I can merge to parent article when this AfD is closed. Jdcooper (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Paar

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

The article appears to not have any secondary sourcing, and the sources on the dewiki article, as well as on Google, are mostly routine announcements and press releases, in addition of use of the company's website. It would be helpful of more secondary sourcing be found, but I feel that this falls short of WP:NCORP. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete there is coverage in reliable sources, such as scientific journals [17] and industry specific publications [18] [19] but not really a ton of it. Coverage in a scientific journal may indicate notability but it reads like a press release, furthermore it also seems they are sponsoring a prize [20] in the same journal and thus coverage may not be fully independent. --hroest 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 German public transport strike

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

A one-day event without much lasting effect, probably fails WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Germany. A1Cafel (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Firstly, I don't see what WP:GNG has to do with it. The sources cited clearly demonstrate sufficient coverage. All three are on the WP:RSPLIST, and by searching online I can see that more sources have covered it as well. Secondly, this was seemingly a huge strike ("the largest transport workers' action since a series of strikes in the 1990s") that did "paralyz[e] Europe's biggest economy", as Namiba points out. Spookyaki (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a strike involving 400,000 workers which was described as "‘paralyzing’ Europe’s biggest economy" is unquestionably notable.--User:Namiba 14:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Iraqis in Kirkuk (2016)

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

The article lacks sources and fails WP:GNG; the topic is not notable enough to warrant its own article. Also, the title is misleading as it implies that the perpetrators were not also Iraqi, which is factually incorrect. Skitash (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article in fact does have reliable sources such as Human rights watch, amnesty international but i will add more cause of this. And what do you mean the perpatrators were also iraqi what is your evidence? It makes no sense to why iraqis would expell there own people DataNomad (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iraq. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the article needs a few more sources i still dont see how this is reasonable to nominate it for deletion DataNomad (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's concerning that you're reintroducing material from a previously deleted article (Deportation of Iraqis), especially when the deletion was likely due to policy issues. Repeating the same content under a new title can be seen as evading consensus. Wikipedia isn't the place for pushing personal or political narratives. R3YBOl (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Support per nom. R3YBOl (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: GNG is met, as best I can tell. There is SIGCOV from reliable sources, including news coverage of UN concerns published by Reuters, a variety of other news sources, and commentary produced by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. While the title is bad—this should be more generally entitled something like Kirkuk expulsions (2016)—that alone is insufficient to support a deletion. I don't see a basis to believe that this article should be deleted for pushing personal or political narratives, either, as no evidence that it is doing so has been raised. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this article uses multiple reliable sources and keeps a neutral point and doesnt seem to have any problems at all. 185.244.152.248 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KSK Energy Ventures

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:55, 14 May 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 14:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait (Mariah Carey song)

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

NN song. Have changed this to a redirect to the album but edit is being reverted. Seeking consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has charted on some music charts. Also its content can't be ignored.

Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One week on a minor chart. What do you mean by'its content cannot be ignored'??TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably redirect. From WP:NSONG: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". In the coverage, Portrait is not the subject nor is the coverage in-depth, because the articles are about the full-length album. We therefore need better "content" than that. Geschichte (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

15×96mm

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

Lack of notability. I changed this to a redirect to 20×82mm#Usage but was reverted. Seeking consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the redirect is incorrect as it doesnt cover this cartridge. This cartridge was in use throughout WW2 but has too much data to be squeezed into the article MG 151 cannon. There is stuff to write about its history given enough time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs)

What time? What is enough time according to you? Geschichte (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? The article is not hurting Wikipedia in its current state, it is just a list of cartridges and their data. This is a matter of deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Blockhaj (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The whole article seems to be copied and pasted from the 316 page manual and there is no secondary sources to prove its actually notable. Its seems to be a development prototype, so wasn't even in anger. So why is on here in the direct. Redirecting with a small para of 2 lines in the destination article would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 18:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

: Note that it wasn't just a development prototype - it did see service, in the MG-151/15 (which was mainly used in early Bf-109Fs- Williams and Gustin's Flying Guns: World War II notes that the 15 mm gun "may have been more widely used than is generally though".Nigel Ish (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Firearms, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per scope-creep; insifficient WP:SIGCOV to warrant a standalone article per WP:NOPAGE. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A large amount of sourced material was deleted from the article......here's the version with it in there: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15%C3%9796mm&oldid=1291517701. Suggest adding footnotes instead of just saying in talk and edit summaries that it's from the noted source. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see material was removed, but I don't see any citations (at all)... I guess that warranted its removal. —Fortuna, imperatrix 19:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – robertsky (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably not a hoax. The Catalan article, ca:Batalla de Turis, and the Italian article, it:Battaglia di Thurii, were edited by two different editors who have not edited this article. Both have offline references.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have an analysis of above additions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VPR Mining Infra Private Ltd

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article lacking sources to demonstrate its notability for an article here. Patre23 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be old article but needs to be cited with notable news references.Almandavi (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Star

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed and not a WP:LISTED company, as it claims on the page. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Andhra Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aparna Enterprises

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree per nom. Asteramellus (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation per policies mentioned expected with this relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wall (guitarist)

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

Musician from non-notable band. Passing mentions in local press as a part of his band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Rift (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With hoping for participation in this discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mayor awards, doesn't have a song in national charts, hasn't played a major part in a major role. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chromebook challenge

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

WP:NOTNEWS Laun chba ller 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. If this topic still has coverage in news or scholarly media a year from now (ha!) we can re-create the article. We don't need to index every passing fad (note how every single source is from the past week). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the dust settles down, this will be remembered similar to the blackout, tide pod, and devious lick challenges and be mentioned time-to-time when talking about challenges. Would say leave it for now, then after the dust settles then we see. 2603:8001:8400:DC34:76E5:4D55:D814:774F (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Anon here. This meme will still be remembered, even after its peak relevancy. It's an example of the crazy things people do for clout, and is far more dangerous and noteworthy than some other internet challenges. The reasons that the 2025 Pakistan-India missle strike has an article, applies here (unless the conflict escalates). Thegoofhere (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lanch, I'm pretty sure you're supposed to give a reason in your nomination. Ameright?

Also, comitting arson for Tiktok views would still probably be a talking point (but more minor) in 7 months. Thegoofhere (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it still is, as of now. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this flash in the pan social media fad passes WP:NEVENT; we would need to see WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And WP:NOTNEWS, while not effusive, is a valid deletion rationale since WP:NOT is the second part of the two-part WP:GNG test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree buddy: There is evidence that it passes WP:NEVENT. I quote it for ya.

"Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact"

It has national impact, many American schools have put out messages stating that students must stop doing the trend. Sources from the article show that incidents of the trend have recorded in 15 US states. Plus, a student was charged for arson whilst participating in the challenge. [21][22] You hear that? A charge of ARSON.

It's a trend that promoted crime, has garnered attention from firefighters and schools, covered in various news sources, is popular even after a week, destroyed property, and led to an arrest.

Yeeessss, very unotable.ಠ_ಠ Thegoofhere (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

just keep it on bro 166.109.26.101 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

istg there are undocumented terrorists out there and your worried about some stupid article of a true challenge 166.109.26.101 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the sky is blue. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutism 165.140.214.242 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still nothing to do with the discussion, there is no point keeping this article on a very likely short-lived fad. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anon wasn't talking to you, nor disagreeing with you. Thegoofhere (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I guess we could draft this, but who knows where it will be in six months. This will likely be forgotten... TOOSOON, the articles are less than two weeks old at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s impossible to predict whether this will have lasting effects. Predicting the future is simply impossible and CRYSTAL. We should reconsider deletion 4 months from now. 73.75.170.176 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON as this is most likely to die down within months. This can be merged into Chromebook article. Patre23 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either List of Internet Phenomena or Chromebook. SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is way too trivial to be mentioned at Chromebook anywhere other than its See also section, but I could get on board with redirecting this to List of Internet challenges (which is where List of Internet phenomena#Challenges takes you).--Laun chba ller 15:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Went through the List of Internet challenges article, it is mentioned in the crime section and was added back in the 8th of May. A merge could suffice since it is already mentioned. SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't think a merge is needed. What criteria does the article not follow, does it need to be reduced to a minor mention?~~ Thegoofhere (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it back. If the result is "delete" then we should put it on List of Internet challenges. But the article has a lot of information that could be lost if it was put there. Thegoofhere (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Run of the mill internet trend. It’s too early to tell whether this will have any lasting impact. Golem08 (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed to redirecting to the entry at List of Internet challenges. Golem08 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there's still new coverage after a short period of time. If not. Turn it into a Draft.Thegoofhere (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its going to at least get metioned time to time so as the other TikTok trends like devious lick, Tide Pods. and if this don't get coverage in a

couple months then it can be deleted and i doubt it will "die down" after getting covered by the biggest reliable source of wikipedia,The New York Times and based on the page views and Google Search Trend which shows over 100 searches and the related searches are "TikTok Challenge" and for the page views and its getting 28 views per a day because its getting AfD'ed, one of the biggest TikTok challenges blowing up right now and people are confused and don't know what it is because its getting AfD'ed. Momentoftrue (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Also, its still getting coverage. Most memes die within like, 2 days. To even pass 1 week proves its a noteworthy subject, even if it's not as popular after a couple of days. Thegoofhere (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, it's been long enough for most independent articles about the challenge to be secondary Thegoofhere (talk) 22:39, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm so sorry, but "trends" like these come and go so quickly; there's a 99% chance this is going to be forgotten by the next month. If it isn't, I stand corrected. However, it is far too soon for a page and shows no signs of continuing notability. If anything, it could be mentioned on Chromebook if this "challenge" lasts longer. jolielover♥talk 07:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover. It's probably best to refrain from making speculative comments. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:DOGBITESMAN-type coverage. Not helped by the WP:BLUDGEONING of the article creator here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People setting their Chromebooks on fire is a routine event that happens all the time? If you're gonna cite a wikipedia policy page, cite one that's relevant. Thegoofhere (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – If this article is deleted, do editors feel this is noteworthy for discussion on the main Chromebook article? In other words, should the contents of this page be merged instead? An IP asked about this a few days ago, before this article was created, and I had similar concerns about long-term notability. However, I just looked this topic up and saw that it has indeed indeed seen coverage by NYT, ABC News, and the like. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find out about this phenomenon from local coverage of one incident. I came here to get more and found useful context and technical details. Remembering this phenomenon long term seems important as a cautionary tale. -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - into the similar Devious lick trend. which both of these trends are very similar. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion has majority arguments with consensus for delete including per WP:TOOSOON. Whereas, considering latest comments, a call for consensus on whether it should be deleted or be merged, redirected/other per WP:ATD with or without any long-term impact considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 12:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brioschi quintic form

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

How to page on an obscure quintec, full of WP:OR and self-published sources (blogs). Page was draftified in November 2024, with advice to cleanup and resubmit via AfC. Originator has ignored this, doubled the size of the paper and recently moved it back to main. No clear demonstration of notability, and numerous problems. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising of a users work in any form. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independents for the National Community

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

This was created by a since blocked user. It's existed for a while which is why I'm not nominating for speedy deletion, but the article is significantly different from its Spanish version. Although the party is likely notable, the rationale behind the user's block (right-wing trolling and sockpupetry) makes me think it's best to delete this and let it be recreated properly by someone who understands the topic, rather than try to fix it. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Venezuela. Rkieferbaum (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Martinez

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

A non-notable academic. This likely AI-generated biography appears to have hallucinated some facts, for example saying that he was editor of the journal Forum: A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, the sole source for which is a permanent dead link. Martinez's own CV does not list this editorship, nor does the journal's website. Since we cannot verify that he was a journal editor, he meets no other criteria of WP:NACADEMIC; his H-index of 22 is well below the normal range for a full professor in social sciences. He does not pass WP:NAUTHOR since his edited books have not had multiple reviews (and there is no consensus on whether co-editing a book counts for NAUTHOR). He doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO#1 for his Fulbright, 800+ of which are awarded every year, so it's not a particularly distinct honor. I don't see evidence that he's quoted regularly on his expertise in the mainstream press. (The AI appears to have hallucinated a nonexistent link to the New York Times website.) The citation for the sentence These books, reviewed in *Palgrave Macmillan* for their interdisciplinary approach, have been cited in *American Political Science Review* and *Political Psychology* for advancing survey measurement of ambivalence. does not actually mention Martinez' books at all and is likely another hallucination based on keyword similarity. In addition to failing WP:N, this bio has significant WP:V problems for a BLP and should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of many LLM pages created by the same editor (30 one-edit articles), too many of which have since been draftified or nominated for deletion (see User talk:Wq4m820). At least one other I checked was full of AI hallucinations, similar to this. I will leave a gentle warning, hopefully the editor will adjust how they are creating pages. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ldm1954 I found another that was AI-generated and went with the non-gentle warning, considering they've already gotten four warnings this month and have been non-responsive to those but continue to create problematic articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at this point, all the articles must seem suspect. I see 6 articles on May 17 in the span of only 5 hours, 7 articles on May 15 in the span of just 3 hours each with 5-7kb of content. this seems all a bit fishy. --hroest 16:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits on the name in Gscholar, but I'm not sure they're about this same person. The fact that the editor has used AI to create other low-quality articles doesn't fill me with hope either for this... I don't see much of anything in a RS Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Irredeemable, nuke it and possibly start over. Geschichte (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I believe with his GS profile, with an h index of 22 and several publications with 100+ citations he is close to the bar of passing WP:NPROF but doesnt quite clear it in my book. I wouldnt quite write him off though, maybe this is just a bit WP:TOOSOON. However, given the other issues with the page, and that we cannot really trust anything that is currently written, there isnt really much to salvage. --hroest 16:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

District heating of Kharkhorin

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

Too narrow a topic for a standalone article, not much significant coverage. I've already merged any relevant content into the Infrastructure section on the Kharkhorin article. Mooonswimmer 09:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Notable and have meaningful information. Bleeng (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rynek, Lesser Poland Voivodeship

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot. Name means simply "Market" (or "market square"). In reality, as the Polish article states, the map shows, and Teryt confirms, this is not a settlement but just a part (i.e., część, and not necessarily a populated part) of the village of Brzezówka. Happy to redirect as an ATD. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't see a redirecting here given that there are probably multiple potential targets for a "market". Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Forever's End

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable artist. Primary sourced promotion lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Closest it gets is an interview with the director in a PRNEWSWIRE feed. No sign of any independent reviews, eg. Prod removed giving no helpful reason. (previous afd was for different subject) duffbeerforme (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see nothing about this film, the name hits in Gbooks [23], but nothing about a film. AFFM Magazine is the closest to a RS we have, the rest aren't helpful (primary or non-RS). We don't have enough about this film. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sourcing isn't the greatest. I found a review from Film Threat. AMFM seems like they're probably OK - they're used as a source in this Taylor & Francis book as well as books from Palgrave Macmillan UK and Bloomsbury. It's been kind of difficult searching for verification on them due to their name throwing up a bunch of false positives, though. They've interviewed some pretty major people, one of which was highlighted by Blabbermouth, which I think is a RS on here, which is a good sign. The Fancine award isn't major enough to give total notability, but I think it would likely contribute towards it. With the two reviews, Fancine award, and some light coverage, I think this squeaks by NFILM. Not the strongest keep, but an OK one. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I think the film was submitted through FT's review program and if so, that would make that unusable. Can anyone verify that? I am still leaning towards a weak keep based on the review and award, but it's tentative. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Antonsen

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

Non notable filmmaker. WP:BLP1E, Got a little bit of feel good interview coverage (lacking independence) for being young but nothing sustained. Otherwise lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Smells like UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Alexander Boon

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

Autobiograpy of non notable filmmaker/academic. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. Previous PROD deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not seeing quite enough to satisfy WP:NCREATIVE. I found half a dozen reviews for a volume of essays that he edited [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], and one review each for two of his books [29] [30]. I wasn't able to find anything for any of his films. Based on those sources I think he falls just short of the bar for NCREATIVE, but could easily be swayed if anyone is able to find additional reviews of his works. MCE89 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartFone Flick Fest

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Ref 3 FilmInk is a press release. Ref 7 Sydney Times is a portion of same. Ref 5 Filmink is PR from MINA, a partner. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. Notability is not inherited from their ambassadors. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Independent Film Festival

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. Mentions in articles about films that showed there is trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Movie Awards

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notable award farm. Bombarded with name dropping but notability is not inherited. Bombarded with lots of primary sources but lack coverage about the actual award organisation. Prod removed because of incoming links but notability is not inherited from those who get one of their "awards". duffbeerforme (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some mentions in Gbooks [31], but that's all. Gnews, Gsearch and Scholar all come up with nada. Sourcing now in the article is primary or imdb, which is not a RS. Lack of sourcing showing this award would meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Film Carnival Singapore

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

Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from people they give awards to. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by The Anome (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

11th West Bengal Assembly

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

Obvious AI slop, see WP:AN/I discussion — The Anome (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete per G3 by The Anome (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10th West Bengal Assembly

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

Addition of obvious AI slop with hallucinated references, see WP:AN/I discussion — The Anome (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Integrated Women and Youth Empowerment Centre

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

Fails all notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Kpg jhp jm 07:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cantabil

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, profit/financial reporting, turnover news, capacity expansion news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Somaiya

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

Not a notable manager and CEO. I don't see the sources to pass WP:Anybio. Cinder painter (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by The Anome (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

14th West Bengal Assembly

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

Addition of AI slop, see discussion on WP:AN/I — The Anome (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apor Györgydeák

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

AI-generated article with fabricated citations about a world champion in an extremely niche sport (teqball). Most coverage I dug up was routine match reports like 1, 2, 3, and 4. The only decent coverage I found is an interview from a teqball-specific blog, which isn't terribly helpful for our purposes. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. JTtheOG (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the links are permanently dead/nonexistent (I'm assuming made up by an LLM). This article doesn't just fail WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT, it's a massive WP:V violation for a BLP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, the article sources don't demonstrate coverage and a search doesn't reveal anything better Garsh (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Greenlee

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

All I was able to find on this basketball player was this interview with the subject and this interview with his parents, which I don't believe warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Macedonia, Florida, and Minnesota. JTtheOG (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing sufficient independent SIGCOV to pass WP:NSPORT/WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be very little coverage of this individual beyond primary sources Garsh (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by The Anome (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

12th West Bengal Assembly

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

AI-generated garbage. See first revision of page, check out the nonsensical citations. — The Anome (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Kpg jhp jm 07:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

On Lok Yun

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

Non-notable Thai coffee shop. No reliable sources that I could discern, and it would seem unlikely and would exist. Current sources include YouTube and blogs. Fails WP:N, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 07:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Thailand. Kpg jhp jm 07:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic establishment with plenty of in-depth coverage. Not sure where the claim of "Current sources include YouTube and blogs" is coming from. Manoottangwai is a web magazine with an established editorial team. Line กนก is a TV programme broadcast on Nation TV. YouTube is not a source; the national TV channel is. Manager Online is an established news website. Only the last one is a personal blog. Also has coverage in Khaosod [32] and Sanook.com [33]. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. Khiikiat (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinji Kaneko

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

No usable sources (including ja:wiki) and no good claim to notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No valid redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shinya Kato

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

No usable sources (including ja:wiki) and no good claim to notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No valid redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osamu Chiba

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

No usable sources (including ja:wiki) and no good claim to notability to meet either WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. No valid redirect target. Geschichte (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joginder Gahunia

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

Bio article yet seems to advertising a restuarant. No indication of significance. Refs are woeful. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by The Anome (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "AI-slop generating contributor, see WP:AN/I". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st West Bengal Legislature

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

I think this is notable but it should be blanked. There are no inline citations and man listed as speaker died before taking office. Also article was created by a blocked user Czarking0 (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with all this editor's other article creations. This appears to be AI slop. See the current WP:AN/I discussion, and their own comment admitting their use of AI here: [34] — The Anome (talk) 07:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and West Bengal. Kpg jhp jm 07:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keka HR

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found modest but sufficiently non-trivial, event-focused coverage in Telangana Today, IndianWeb2 (a local news site), and others like The Economic Times. They give not so bad third-party coverage that makes it possible to publish a page using only independent sources. Also, there are some quotes from the company's management which are not helpful, but they do not dominate the coverage. Once upon a daylight dreary (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to meet WP:GNG as I found some significant coverage in reliable and independent references to the subject. Fade258 (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marthe De Pillecyn (K3)

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

No indication of standalone notability outside band. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She was already subjected to an AfD back in 2015 and the verdict then was to redirect to her group. The current article's non-compliant title indicates that the creator either ignored that outcome or is unfamiliar with the process. Also note that her groupmates have their own articles, perhaps creating the impression that Marthe deserves one too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K3 (group). Except for some minor tabloid chatter about her personal life, she has no notable accomplishments or coverage outside the group, and she can be (and already is) introduced there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold F. Pryor

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

Subject clearly fails WP:NPOL. From GNG perspective, the sources either fail one or two of the three criteria. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This fails WP:SIGCOV. This is substantial coverage but fails WP:INDEPENDENT. This is probably substantial but fails WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:IRS. Others happen to be WP:ROUTINE. Hence, GNG is not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. Kpg jhp jm 07:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For a local politician, there's no presumption of notability under WP:NPOL, and WP:ROUTINE local coverage of election activity does not count as WP:SIGCOV toward WP:GNG. I concur with VWF's source analysis here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician/attorney - needs more sources from outside his local political area to show notability per NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFL Community Shield

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

Uncourced, non notable Mn1548 (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Kpg jhp jm 07:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tannery Garden, Basirhat

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

WP:GEOLAND only presumes notability for the legally recognized city of Basirhat, not the informally defined Tannery Garden neighborhood. Citing the Bharat Sevashram Sangha website's listing of its address cannot support the claim that the area is famous for that group's presence. Listing the post office pin code does not establish notability because all sufficiently small areas have a single postal code. The Basirhat Police website failed to load, but it seems to only establish the neighborhood's existence, rather than providing significant coverage of the neighborhood as a distinct entity. The claimed 2025 population and literacy rate are made without citation, which is particularly confusing because the 2025 census of India remains indefinitely postponed, while the 2011 census of India only measured Basirhat as a whole, not at the neighborhood level. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 05:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate crinkle

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

I came across this page yesterday refbombed with recipe blogs. I looked for better sources to replace them and could only find two sources with sigcov: Metroscene mag and Field Guide to Cookies. I've since looked closer at Metroscene Mag and see they identify as a blog, leaving only one source contributing to GNG.
ATDs: (1) Redirect to Filipino cuisine where they are mentioned. An expansion would give undue weight, they do not appear particularly important to Filipino cuisine. (2) Merge to Filipino-American cuisine: I disapprove of this. The article is currently scoped to Filipino food in America (i.e. food of Filipino Americans) and would be out of scope. (3) Redirect to list of cookies: Oppose a merge as the criteria for inclusion is implicitly "meets GNG". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 05:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Compensation Insurance

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

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

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

Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [35][36][37][38][39][40] (Primary, non independent source), [41][42][43][44][45][46]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AnonymousScholar49 is correct, that there exist some good sources that someone could add to the article, e.g. US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Insurance Journal are legit. As for this being a non-profit, I don't know about that. It is described as "a U.S. insurance rating and data collection bureau specializing in workers' compensation. Operating with a not-for-profit philosophy and owned by its member insurers...". I'm not sure why this is important but merely responding to Anon.--FeralOink (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY, I’ve cleaned up the article and added WP:RS sources from the U.S. Department of Labor, Reuters, and Insurance Journal (2). Promotional and unsourced content has been removed or, where appropriate, clearly tagged. The article now meets WP:THREE and satisfies notability under WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

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

Non-notable academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no indication of notability and can't find a suitable target for a merge/redirect. I considered whether the article could be rescoped to be about the Journal of Cultural Interaction in East Asia, but that doesn't seem to be notable either. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus bus crash

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

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Unable to find any secondary coverage, only initial news reports and then the follow up news report when the driver died. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Spain. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's been sustained coverage in reliable sources in late 2016 [47], 2017 [48], 2018 [49], 2019 [50], 2021 [51], 2023 [52][53][54][55]. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2016 is breaking news about closing the case, 2017 and 2018 are breaking news about reopening the case, 2019 is breaking news about reclosing the case, 2021 is breaking news about a memorial (but also has significant coverage of the crash itself), the 2023 sources are about the driver's death and the subsequent end of the case, and 2021 (which you listed as 2023) is breaking news about a memorial. The 2021 source is promising, but I'd hope for at least one source that actually demonstrated that it's notable in its own right as opposed to contemporary coverage over a long period of time. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The one in 2021 provides non-breaking news in-depth coverage, as you already noticed, and that is sustained coverage:
Costantini, Luca (19 March 2021). "El 'caso Freginals', cinco años de parálisis judicial y con los familiares indignados". Vozpópuli (in Spanish).
The forensic analysis of the case has been published in the Spanish legal medicine journal, which is effectively a primary source, but also an indication of it not being a routine event:
Cabús, Rosa Maria (2023). "Intervención forense en el accidente de autobús con 13 víctimas mortales en Freginals, Tarragona, España". Revista Española de Medicina Legal (in Spanish). 49 (2): 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.reml.2023.03.001.
MarioGom (talk) 10:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple WP:RS found.Sigma World (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this single event merits its own page. Does not have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, it has follow ups on opening/closing of case, but I don't think they establsih notability of the event. Which makes me think it is also not that notable. Based on WP:EVENTCRITERIA, seems to fall under routine news. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A specific analysis of available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep international coverage over several years by reliable sources

Czarking0 (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A statement like "international coverage over several years by reliable sources" doesn't come anywhere close to an analysis of sources. Editors arguing to Keep an article have to put in compelling, specific arguments on exact sources that provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pisgah, Indiana

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

There's nothing there, and sources consistently characterize this as a post office. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep However it is not clear to me if this is legally recognized according to WP:GEOLAND which is what my argument is based on. Czarking0 (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go read WP:GNIS. We have not taken listing in these official gazetteers for a long time, and in any case, GNIS in particular has proven to be vairly error-prone. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: weak keep - might have historical significance. e.g. see this [[56]] Asteramellus (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The story is at least untrue to the extent that this Mt. Pisgah is nowhere near the military base; it's over 150 miles away in a different corner of the state. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this ever was a community in the sense required by GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was more than a post office at Mt. Pisgah. According to Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, April 9, 1921 Page 6 there was a general mercantile store there that sold coffee for the desperate. It is mentioned as a "place" in Hoosier Folklore Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jun., 1943), pp. 14-16. ([57]). So there's a hint that there's more than a post office, but evidence is shy that it was a community. Maddening. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The comment I'm left with as a closer is "So there's a hint that there's more than a post office, but evidence is shy that it was a community"...so where doesn't that leave us as a consensus of editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The most common ATD in similar cases would be a redirect to the local township. In this case Milford Township, LaGrange County, Indiana. But IMO,sources remain too thin for even that. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Halocene

AfDs for this article:

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

While this isn't a G4, the substance of the issues raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Halocene do not appear to have been addressed by this new draft and merger. Since the decision is two years old, a new consensus may be helpful. Bringing it here for discussion. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Television, United States of America, and Arizona. Star Mississippi 01:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Saw this earlier but was going to let the dust settle a day prior to bringing to AfD. Page created despite draft being declined multiple times. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy (effectively endorsing the closure of the first AfD). Now that I've the energy to sit and do WP:BEFORE search, I've found mostly press releases or routine announcements, some of which are cited in the article itself. Many of the in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources are about the plagiarism accusations. I had done the merge because a patroller (?) found Halocene (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and requested a pageswap with the base page name. I thought it better to keep the extensive page history at plain old Halocene, especially since (band) only has my merge, the patroller's addition of a short description and hatnote, and the recreator's writing. (For transparency, nominator notified me about this AfD on my user talk.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 06:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with aggregating the history together in the event Halocene becomes notable and have no issue with any of your actions here @Rotideypoc41352. I also notified the creator of the new article so that you were both aware since the script "saw" the creator as the the one who created the article deleted in 2023. I'm guessing the history was somewhere as this is a remarkable first edit even assuming Rledder had been active as an IP before registering for easy creation. Star Mississippi 12:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just didn't want the potential contradiction between my initial actions (removing the redirect) and my comment here [to restore it] to confuse the closer or anyone else looking into this AfD, so I thought I would clarify that the merge was more about attribution and page history than about notability. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Redirect with history in tact to The Masked Singer (Australian TV series)#Controversy. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. I created this in good-faith but for some reason a promotional version was restored - I've removed unsourced and promotional content. Halocene has received coverage beyond The Masked Singer controversy, coverage dates back to 2011 when Phoenix New Times covered it ([58]). Two state-level publications have covered it including Phoenix New Times and Arizona Republic and meets WP:SIGCOV thresold. Phoenix New Times covered it in-depth in 2011, 2017, and 2020. Rock Sound covered it in 2023. None of these sources were provided by editors in the previous draft or deletion discussion. There are more references in music magazines as well and should be kept. Rledder (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cleaning up the article and for leaving a detailed comment here. I see what I consider to be an acceptable variability in judgment on which sources show the band meets GNG (or WP:NBAND). The first two [external] links are to the same source (explaining for closer's convenience)—and it is an interview, which is not independent of the subject and doesn't help determine if they meet GNG. I have no firm opinion on the 2017 PNT article; the 2020 one does meet the WP:SIRS criteria. I read the 2023 Rock Sound piece as a routine announcement (of a new release) and thus not significant coverage of the band (and maybe not even for the single itself, tangentially). Returning to the topic at hand, I do not know if we have had consensus that two sources shows that this subject meets GNG. As nominator said, this discussion will hopefully clarify that and the evaluation for notability purposes of the sources we can find. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying for closer that WP:SIRS in my reply above simply refers to the bullet points under WP:GNG: secondary sources independent of the subject, reliable, and contain significant coverage of the subject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the band passes WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. As it currently stands, with two articles that meet WP:SIRS criteria, it passes that test. While I see merit in the redirect option, a read into the band's article and the sources linked suggests that while the controversy surrounding The Masked Singer did play a major factor, their notability is not solely derived from that incident.

(also a minor declaration that I was the one who happened to patrol the article as Rotideypoc mentioned) Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the sources which you feel show it passes GNG/NBAND? Also, how does SIRS apply as that is a company guideline? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SIRS does apply to the source materials, which shows a likely level of notability associated with the subject. In this case, having at least one quoted article in 2019 coming from The Arizona Republic - the most widely circulated newspaper in Arizona - infers a presumable notability that goes statewide.

In addition to The Masked Singer controversy article(s), one of which was the aforementioned quoted article, the 2020 Phoenix New Times article @Rledder mentioned earlier in the discussion states that the band has taken what was back in 2020 considered a lesser-adopted approach to Twitch as a platform, and are recognized by the streaming platform for it. That in itself merits independent notability from The Masked Singer, and a degree of notability that is non-trivial. Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 17:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but SIRS has NO application for this page. It is a subject specific notability guideline dealing with companies, not musicians and/or bands. You have also failed to cite the requested sources that show notability under GNG or NBAND. Do you have those available for the discussion? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede on the SIRS part as this may have been my misunderstanding on how it's applied in sources. As to the requested sources: The Arizona Republic article (reference 9), as well as the PNT article in question (reference 4). Frank_{(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion)} 18:28, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for conceding. The AP article is paywalled but I am assuming it was prior to 2023? I should have specified that I am looking for sources showing notability since the last deletion discussion where it was found they were not notable. We are not here to relitigate the previous AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see a consensus here and, in some parts of the discussion, not even agreement on acceptable standards for sources. I think a bit more discussion will help and maybe a bit more editor participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Kreuser

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Sources cited are several database entries, a paid publicity announcement, and a single local news announcement of a transfer. News search turns up a few mentions of his name in lists of players, but no in-depth coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Minnesota, and North Dakota. — Moriwen (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is better known as “Rocky Kreuser” in the USA. When you search that, looks borderline keep/delete so will do a thorough review later. Rikster2 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage/notability. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Heart of Edna Leslie

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

I did my WP:BEFORE and found that it does not meet both WP:RS and WP:N. It is a silent film with almost no reliable sources, not worthy of Wikipedia DankPedia (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that the film was released in 1910, sourcing is understandably sparse. I added a link to this title on Turner Classic Movies. The old silent films are difficult to source. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC) - Well, I just found a link to the The Meridian Morning Record of October 24, 1910 that reviewed the film. Hope this helps. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found some additional ones in Newspapers.com - they're short and some of them are of course posted in multiple places, but they're there. ([59], [60]) I'd like some more in-depth content though, if possible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

California Cup Juvenile Fillies Stakes

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

Non notable horse race with limited reliable sources. The only ones were data sheets from the race, no notable coverage in the press. DankPedia (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Horse racing, and California. DankPedia (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleving Group

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

Fails WP:NORG - no indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability supported by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and google does not show sources

Czarking0 (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Latvia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kin'unken

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

I did my WP:BEFORE and am nominating it for deletion under the grounds of WP:N. It could barely find any sources in Japanese, and none in English. DankPedia (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. DankPedia (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What's your assessment of the Japanese sources you found? MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Schlesinger

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

nn musicial. Tagged for notability for 10 years already. Music on self label. Sources I see only interviews (maybe I am lazy, but failed to find independent coverage). --Altenmann >talk 03:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant notability/coverage in media. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a little confusing because she promotes herself both as MALKA and as Tamara Schlesinger. Either way, self-promotions are all I can find and she has not received any significant coverage from the reliable music media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hughes

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite holding a faculty position and receiving an award, there is no significant coverage of Nigel Hughes in independent sources. The article relies mostly on university-hosted professional profiles, I could not find substantial third-party sources and article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Education, Archaeology, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Chronos.Zx (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep per WP:NPROF. He passes WP:NPROF#1 due to a high citation count in a low citation field with an h-index of 39 per Scopus and more than 10 publications with 100+ citations per Google Scholar. The award he received is a strong argument that he likely also passes WP:NPROF#2. Both of these are way beyond what is usually required in AfD to keep an article of an academic. Since we can apply NPROF, we do not have to consider GNG and after establishing notability, we can use professional profiles to write an article per NPROF and substantial coverage in third party sources is not required. It seems the nominator has not done a substantial WP:BEFORE and evaluation per WP:NPROF before nomination. --hroest 03:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide those links to verify your claim, so I can reconsider my AfD nomination? Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sure, here you go for Scopus and GS (he doesnt seem to have his own profile) and the award. --11:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
keep. Has honors. --Altenmann >talk 03:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wanted to note for the record that the first nomination was for a different Nigel Hughes. (This seemed apparent from the nominations themselves, but the logs preserved the first bit of both articles' wikitext, and they clearly reflect two different birthdates of two different people.) No opinion on the current article on the current subject. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that his citation count is sufficient to satisfy WP:NPROF#C1. He is also a Fellow of the Paleontological Society [61], which appears to be a selective elected position that gives him a pass of WP:NPROF#C3. And his Raymond C. Moore Medal gives him a reasonable claim to notability under WP:NPROF#C2. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hannes Röst [62] for providing those links. I’ve reviewed them and am now convinced to withdraw the nomination. Chronos.Zx (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Esperanto Union

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage independent of the subject. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Organizations. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'del no see indepth indep covge. --Altenmann >talk 03:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Reisz

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Hungary, and Romania. Joeykai (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. I see 13 sources listed in this article, seven on which appear to be reliable web sites or news sources in Hungarian and German. I'm curious exactly where the nominator searched in a WP:BEFORE. Were non-English language articles searched? Flibirigit (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding much significant coverage of the player in reliable sources. Significant coverage is only in a hockey blog. There is certainly difficulty in searching Hungarian sources, but thus far my search has been unsuccessful.

Here is a quick assessment of the sources in the article (note: I am relying on google translate for these). Not sure if this will change your mind @Flibirigit:

1,4,8,10,11,12 are from a hockey blog and are not reliable

2: About national team, not player. Reisz only mentioned in roster list.

3: Only appears in roster list

5: Routine game coverage mentioning Reisz goal

6: Routine game coverage that mentions Reisz

7: Page not found

9: Behind paywall; most likely source for establishing notability

13: Only appears in roster list

Given there is only one potentially reliable, in-depth source this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found three Hungarian sources [63], [64], and [65]. The last one is tabloidy but the first two seem to be on a legitimate news site. Zzz plant (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tercio of Idiáquez

AfDs for this article:

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

Practically everything that has been written to expand the article in order to prevent it from being deleted is false (other than the Thirty Years' War section). The previous user who withdrew their AfD nomination did not fact check any of the sources or information added. The article has been expanded incorrectly and mostly falsified (though it's likely, or at least I'd like to think, that it wasn't done on purpose and the editor who expanded the article just wanted to help improve it). If you wish to help improve the article, please use proper sources which correlate with the information written. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 28 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 14:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Military units of battalion size or larger are generally considered to be notable. The answer is editing and improvement, not deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 6 May 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 02:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alinur Velidedeoğlu

AfDs for this article:

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

It was deleted a year ago, and not much has changed since then. There’s been the same routine coverage of events, interviews, and mentions. Since he’s an advertising executive, some routine media coverage is to be expected, but direct, in‑depth, quality coverage is still lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Turkey, and Michigan. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Politics, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is easily satisfied through both the GNG and the SNG about creative artists. The sources are not routine coverage. His advertising work is covered in depth in two academic papers. He was in charge of Turkey's second largest and oldest political party's advertising campaign. The nominator did an AfC review for this article but did not mention at all any concern about "notability" in their review comments, all their concern was about the non-encyclopedic style and NPOV violations. What is the reason for this inconsistency? If there is a notability concern, they should have mentioned in their AfC review. The subject is also the producer of various notable productions, which received coverage in sources like The Hollywood Reporter, which is considered a reliable source. The second deletion discussion was poorly attended, with non-policy-based !votes. RE: "not much has changed since then", please compare the two versions. Also, please see @Fram's comment in the first deletion discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was declined by Article for Creation on May 3 for being too promotional in tone. Article was then moved to main space by the creator with the comment The article waited too long in the AfC queue, and I disagree with the feedback it received. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if there are any concerns. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, but not exactly... I'm not the article's creator. It was created in 2007, and I wasn't active on Wikipedia at the time, and I have no connection to the user who created it. The AfC reviewer and the nominator of this AfD are the same user, and for some reason, they believe not much has changed between this version of the article and this earlier version. Also, they didn't say it was promotional; they said the style violates the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. I wasn't sure whether that meant it was too promotional or too defamatory, as there are paragraphs that could be interpreted either way, and all based on reliable sources. Note that the sources that I used are not tabloids, but mainstream Turkish newspapers, columnists, commentators and academic papers. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two versions that need to be compared are the one declined at AFC 12:03, 3 May 2025 edit and the draft moved to main space 20:07, 3 May 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alinur_Velidedeo%C4%9Flu&diff=1288613775&oldid=1288553988 You are correct that the article was declined as not written in a formal, neutral encyclopedic tone. I misspoke in my previous post when I stated the article was declined as being too promotional in tone. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination statement of this AfD incorrectly states that not much has changed since the prior nomination, that's the reason I asked those two versions to be compared. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment I declined the speedy deletion, because the current article is substantially different from the one deleted, which consisted of only two of the current paragraphs. The opinion of a AfC reviewer does not constitute a deletion discussion, there is no need to have any improvement after that. No opinion on the notability, but given that it is harder to assert notability for people outside the english language world (and english references) and the efforts of TheJoyfulTentmaker in improving it, I suggest, that it is draftified/userfied if not kept - Nabla (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I clarified in the 2nd nomination. I do not think that the sources is adequate for passing GNG.--Kadı Message 10:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 14:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient media presence for a socialite, akin to Kardashians, "notable for being notable". --Altenmann >talk 03:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kruse (surgeon)

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

Unnotable bio that fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Not sourced by any reliable sources and none could be found during WP:BEFORE. The first and last references state that they are WP:SPONSORED content, and the other two references are nothing more than directory listings. Was successfully PRODded once before, but the page creator requested its undeletion, but no new references or evidence of notability are available. Since it has been undeleted per the page creators request, coming here instead of WP:DRAFTIFYing. cyberdog958^Talk 01:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Science, Medicine, and Texas. cyberdog958^Talk 01:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources are routine doctor's profiles and a sponsored advert. --Altenmann >talk 03:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The person does not appear to have notable recognition. I could not find significant mentions in the press. JohnMizuki (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 09:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings

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

Opening introduction explicitly admits to "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." The combination of these two trees is the entire basis of the article, which seems like not good enough for an article. It is highly speculative and not verifiable and the original authors (Tarn and Narain) have been criticised in more recent scholarship for speculative inventions. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ForWhomTheSunShines, I understand the concerns and understand that Tarn and Narain may be inaccurate, but these are the texts that I have. I know that other authors say something different, so when I get those texts, I (or someone else) will revise the trees. Additionally, I give the kings several different fathers (for example, see Apollodotus I in the tree, who has 5 different possible fathers, so I am taking all possible considerations into account here). I also put dotted lines for some kings when the relationship is very unclear, making it being speculation clear. So I am making it clear these Greco-Bactrian trees, just like an Egyptian one (like the 1st Dynasty), will not necessarily be fully accurate. As for the speculation and unverifiable of the tree, well, we do have Greco-Bactrian coinage. The reason I said "This family tree (and the trees below it) is based on a combination of Tarn's and Narain's genealogies of the Greco-Bactrian kings, which are not necessarily fully correct, as with all ancient family trees." is because I want to make it very clear that is a probable layout for how the various kings are related to each other and is not supposed to be taken as dogma, just like many ancient family trees. If you want me to find different authors and replace Tarn and Narain, I will. I just wanted to use two of the most important Greco-Bactrian historians who helped establish the discipline.

OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, India, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: couldn't this be saved simply by identifying the differences between the two authors' reconstructions, either by presenting different versions of the trees, or by showing the different positions taken by each author using the varying line and border options? If other scholars disagree with their opinions, that can also be noted on or adjacent to the trees. I will suggest that the trees might need to be less horizontal and more vertical. I never stretch my browser window to the whole width of the screen, and without that the trees exceed the width of the page. But this, like noting disagreements between the authors named and other scholarship, can be achieved through ordinary editing; the page does not have to be deleted in order to improve it to Wikipedia standards. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this comment. I agree that it could be saved this way, and I will add the position of the various authors too. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The authors' proposals themselves are questionable and unreliable. The first citation for the first tree is clear that it is “pedigree of the Euthydemids and Eucratides to show the fictitious descent from Alexander." (emphasis added). Tarn, William Woodthorpe (1966). The Greeks in Bactria and India (2 ed.). New York, U.S.: Cambridge University Press. p. 568. ISBN 9781108009416. Retrieved 30 December 2024. The placement of a daughter of Euthydemus I marrying a Chinese emperor and bearing is son is based on speculation from an uncited paragraph. There's mashing together of speculative theory throughout the page.

This seems to be a violation of reason for deleting #6, "[a]rticles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes." The combination of multiple speculative, unreliable articles into one family tree is effectively the construction of an original theory or conclusion. It also violates ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if we ignore the descent from Alexander, doesn't Tarn still state everything else, according to The Greeks in Bactria and India pgs 71ff? And I agree that the connection to Qin Shi Huangdi is spurious, I just added it on the off chance it could be correct. It was taken from Christopoulos, Lucas (September 2022). "SINO-PLATONIC PAPERS: Dionysian Rituals and the Golden Zeus of China" (PDF). Sino-Platonic Papers. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.: University of Pennsylvania. pp. 84–86. Retrieved 4 January 2025. Also, if we clean up and or/delete this article (hopefully not because I did work hard on it), we must clean up the individual articles on the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kings too, as sources need to be cited for each king's article and other changes need to be made. However, we don't have to delete this article, as it can be cleaned up to remove it of any "speculative theory." OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the off chance" is not a reason to add something to an article. And you are correct, many of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek king articles should also be cleaned up. ForWhomTheSunShines (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, it is my first article that I made. I did not know those rules. But tomorrow, I will delete Qin Shi Huangdi, as I see now that the Lucas reference in the Xiutu article was removed. OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Not ready for main space. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Umm....other editors allowed my article to be published back in December. Why would we put it back into draft? OrthodoxByzantineRoman (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's "Not ready for main space". If it's not moved, it should be deleted as a badly-formatted and ill-cited mess of original research and speculative fiction. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. See WP:NOPAGE. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telegantic Megavision

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DankPods

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

I'm not seeing how this YouTuber meets notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NENTERTAINER. The sourcing is very weak, mostly to blogs or blog-like sources or to user-submitted content. The tone is promotional and the article contains quite a bit of non-encyclopedic trivia such as the name of their pet snake and their collection of Pokemon cards. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Technology, Internet, and Australia. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Do you consider The Verge to be a reliable sources? And as per WP policies primary sources can be used for citing basic facts.

I believe you misread the article, the article does not talk about his collection of Pokémon cards, it says how he makes Pokémon like cards for each of the cars he reviews

if you don’t like the part about his snake, delete it DankPedia (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DankPedia, do you have a relationship with DankPods? LibStar (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. DankPedia (talk) 01:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar name though. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created the DankPods article and your user name coincidentally is User:DankPedia??? —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check the logs, this was a renaming. I do not have any personal connection with DankPods, nor have I ever met the guy in person. DankPedia (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I sympathize with the nom, I took a BOLD edit to this and I think GNG is met. I removed some of the more PROMO content Czarking0 (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'''Keep''' I agree. This article should be kept. It goes, while not in depth, into facts about dankpods that should be on wikipedia. Also, we can always edit this article to make it more suitable than it already is. IIEcolor (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit, I did change the wording a bit, instead of saying he "attracted" 1.2 million followers I said he has 1.2 million subscribers

This will help with WP:NPOV, which I feel this article satisfies DankPedia (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Czarking0's edits satisfies NPOV and there are quite a few sources showing notability 174.193.137.171 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)— 174.193.137.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep - I'm going to say that the Sydney Morning Herald and The Verge sources barely push this over the line of notability. The other's I'm not convinced of their reliability or depth of coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 78.26. I agree that the SMH and The Verge sources are just enough to satisfy GNG. Both of them are reliable sources and the articles are pretty clearly independent SIGCOV. I'm not convinced by any of the others. MCE89 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourteen Days' War

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

Note tag. Supposed to be historical fact but can't verify it as no page numbers. No indication of significance. Unable to verify it in gbooks, refseek, internet archive. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 08:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat agree with the deletion. The event however do exist but the source for it is very lacking and the original article mostly just anti communist fantasy. I've edited it to make it more neutral but still, proper academic source such as university research is hard to find. Dauzlee (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dauzlee: That is the core of it. Normally I wouldnt' sent such an article to Afd. In fact I don't think I've done that before and probably wont do it again. I spent close 4 hours back and forward while I was working in the garden on Sunday and couldn't find a thing on it of worth. I must have looked at it about 8 times and couldnt determine if it was valid or not. I don't think it was a war, more like a massacre or an action but either way I could verify it. I searched for an alternate name perhaps from the opposing side and couldn't find anything there either. scope_creep^Talk 04:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that if this is hard to find coverage for, then it may better to find a page to merge or redirect rather than delete. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no arguments and both a Merge and Redirect were suggested but without target article suggestions. I'd like to ask User:Wcquidditch if they could deletion sort this AFD for Military History, too. One skill I have yet to master here. Thanks in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that there is no deletion sorting page for "military history", just the separate ones for military and history. It was already sorted under "history" (by someone else) relatively quickly, but when I first sorted this I'm not sure how I missed that it hadn't been placed under "military" yet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYRG

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

Procedural AfD following WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 5#DYRG. Duckmather (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Duckmather (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 124.104.16.92 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has been blocked for disruption. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this short page has a complicated recent history and I don't believe it is eligible for a Soft Deletion especially as an editor involved and who cast a "vote" here has been blocked. Can we get some more arguments here? This article was BLAR'd and objected to so Redirection is another option besides Keep and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably the 10th radio or TV station I have seen at AfD this month. Is there any wider effort to address this ?

Czarking0 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oyomevotu Obada

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

WP:ROTM businessperson., Fails WP:BIO. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 00:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also checked BBC nothing notable
Czarking0 (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Fails the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON and WP:GNG. Nothing much to establish notability. King ChristLike (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 10:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Does not appears to meet business person. I did not found significant coverage in reliable and independent references as well. Fade258 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, WP:TOOSOON. Secondary and significant coverage is lacking. [66], [67] only these two news coverage available in simple google search. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]