Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 27	March 29 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Mirna Abdulaal

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

Mirna Abdulaal does not meet notability requirements specified in WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST.

The environmental award mentioned on her page is given by the Cairo Climate Talks, a non-notable organization.
Google Books search shows three books citing her articles, which is not close to being widely cited by peers.
Most importantly, Google News search shows articles written by her but no secondary sources about her, so we have no reliable information about Abdulaal that can be added to her page.

Thanks, Iiii I I I (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, COVID-19, Environment, and Egypt. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found an eBook with the name, but with no biographical information, who knows. Wikipedia is not a resume which is what this is. Cannot pass the barest of notability or GNG.

Rebecca Renner

AfDs for this article:

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

Bio of a one-book author that appears to fail notability guidelines for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Single valid reference about this person is an announcement in a small college daily. The other refs provided are her PR agent, blogs, and several of her own bi-lined articles. All the remaining references cover the book, not the author. None of this is enough significant coverage to meet GNG. It seems there could be enough refs for a page about the book where a redirect might be appropriate. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately someone recently removed a review of her book from the references without explaining why. There is sufficient coverage of her work to justify this page. She is an author. Her work is the thing that matters. Who gives a fuck about where she was born or what her favourite colour is. What has she written and how has it been received is what is encyclopedic content. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After another look at the edit history I am no longer able to support the keeping of this spam. Blow it away. Delete UPE spam, deny them their ill gotten gains. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the more notable subject is her true crime work, but there seems to be enough individualized coverage to support an article on her. The Stenson article does not contribute to notability, so I have to make this a weak keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Has had one popular book, which received RS reviews. I do not find it on best seller lists. I just don't think a single successful book (but no awards) suffices. Lamona (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple articles by major media organizations, including NPR, the Tampa Bay Times, and the Minnesota Star Tribune, qualify this article as notable due to the Wikipedia notability criteria of significant coverage by multiple sources. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African American Barbers in Fargo-Moorhead

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

New article that, in addition to seeming AI-generated, is almost entirely WP:OR. I was not able to verify that the broad category of this article is notable even if some of the individuals discussed are, and the sources used only relate to individuals, not "African American Barbers" as a whole. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, Minnesota, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find a possibly useful source from 2022 that spent several paragraphs talking about this topic, so there might be an article lead here.^[1] Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This *is* helpful - I need to brush up on my Newspapers.com skills! If deletion happens, we could potentially incorporate some of this into the "History" sections of Fargo, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 13:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lamb, John (April 26, 2022). "Black history in focus at Moorhead's HCSCC". The Forum. Fargo, North Dakota. p. B5. Retrieved March 22, 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the topic is too specific and narrow. Wikipedia is not a local history yearbook. I recommend expanding the pages mentioned by Thadeus. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing_extremist_attacks_in_Berlin-Neukölln

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Right-wing extremist attacks in Berlin-Neukölln

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

This article is poorly written and contains original research, making it clearly not up to the standards of Wikipedia. But the reason I do not think it is worth keeping and improving is that the topic is not notable. It describes a group of attacks with no known perpetrator, background or connection to each other. So the information content of this article is basically that neo-Nazis or other right-wing extremists live in Berlin and sometimes commit crimes there. This is not news to anyone who has much experience with this city. For those who do not, I think it would be better to include this information in related articles like Berlin, Neukölln or Crime in Germany, ideally in the form of summary statistics about the number, type and background of crimes committed in these areas. Cfrhansen (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this article appears to have been created by the sockpuppet of a user who has since been banned, making it unlikely that they will ever improve it. Cfrhansen (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure, not having read the sources, but maybe this would be best merged to the article on the marches that were made as a reaction to these attacks? Mrfoogles (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to this article? I couldn't find anything. Best, Cfrhansen (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow of a Man (song)

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

As much as I don't want to add to the choir of Mayhem AfD nominations, I feel that this article pretty blatantly fails WP:NSONG. None of the sources listed in the article pertain to the song in specific, such that it would let the song be the "subject"; the vast majority are album reviews, there is one interview where Gaga herself talks about the song (Consequence), and there is one brief mention that the song was used in a teaser for the album (Cosmopolitan). A WP:BEFORE check nets the same conclusion, even though the album has been out for a few weeks now. To pre-emptively bring this up, the song charting does not guarantee it notability; it only "suggest[s] that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful", which in this case the search is clearly not. I feel that this is a cut-and-dry case of WP:TOOSOON, and, as a potential alternative to deletion, would advocate for redirecting to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) and/or draftifying. Leafy46 (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leafy46 (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate of Bale

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

Fails WP:GNG There is little to no evidence that a Sultanate of Bale existed, as someone who has ancestry in the area. Most of the information of Bale refers to it as a province/territory of either Ethiopia or Adal with very little if any records of the supposed sultanate that predates them, should be redirected to a more well sourced duplicate article Bale (historical region). Socialwave597 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cities named after states they are not located in

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

Declined PROD, which was declined by an IP (possibly a sock of the author). List does not appear to satisfy WP:NLIST, and topic reeks of WP:OR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside Missouri City, Texas, all of these cities are appropriately named to their region, next to a water or natural feature the town is named for, or ended up in another state because of geography and politics. Not really needed and reads of failed OR. Nathannah • 📮 23:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NLIST. This is a bit of trivia almost nobody really cares about or has noticed. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' there are cities named after states in which they are not located . Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indrani - Epic 1- Dharam vs Karam

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

Has no reliable reviews, [1] is not reliable per the Indian Cinema Taskforce. The film attempts to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Inclusionary_criteria #1 as the "The first Indian superwoman film", but there is absolutely no content to write an article about it.

The film's title is just Indrani and the rest shoulnd't be included per WP:TAGLINE. DareshMohan (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2024#April–June -Mushy Yank. 22:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a review at 123Telugu (I know that a recent decision has the site listed as "unreliable", but, again, I think it can be used for verification). (original version: https://www.123telugu.com/telugu/news/indrani-movie-review-in-telugu.html) (same comment for IndiaGlitz: http://www.indiaglitz.com/indrani---epic-1-dharam-vs-karam-review-telugu-movie-review-35012). There are a lot of interviews on YouTube and articles about production so if others think this should be kept because it meets NFIC#1, fine by me. -Mushy Yank. 23:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I20 (film)

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

No reliable reviews, all sources are relating to promotional events and OTT release. Sources found in WP:BEFORE: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Only review found was this, which has a dubious reliability [9]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2024 (released + one review, more for verification than notability) [technically a merge] -Mushy Yank. 22:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And @DareshMohan, thanks a lot for linking the findings of your BEFORE. That's very helpful. -Mushy Yank. 22:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neerukulla 35km

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

Needs 2 reliable reviews; it has only one. Has no other reliable sources either. Hesitant to redirect to draft despite being new since article creator has a history of moving drafts back to articlespace.

Technically, the film's title probably refers to a road marker indicating 35 km to Neerukulla, a village in Hanamkonda district. Can redirect to the district's article. DareshMohan (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2025#January–March: (just added there or would have !voted merge); released film with a review; seems a reasonable ATD in this case. Draftity if judged insufficient. And, of course, if other reviews emerge, expand back into a standalone page. -Mushy Yank. 21:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really in favour of redirecting it to the district, though. -Mushy Yank. 21:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Tayam

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

Only a candidate. Fails wp;politician TheLongTone (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Politicians. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete– The subject fails WP:GNG. Subject has some coverage but does not meet specific criteria for politicians. RolandSimon (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dunno what article RolandSimon was looking at LOL. Article has 2 high quality WP:RS above and beyond WP:GNG. That's our hurdle for people not meeting WP:NPOL. This guty would be absolutely crushed at the election though but in case he'd win, then he'd qualify for WP:NPOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage centered on his candidacy and fails WP:NPOL. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 28 March 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 keep. Not speedy (which it isn't anyway, having been listed for over a week) or "Nomination withdrawn", but because of consensus and the expansion that has invalidated the ONEOTHER argument. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Freeman (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation pages aren't needed for only two items, see WP:ONEOTHER. One of the pages is just a redirect anyway. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- You meant "Josh Freeman" not "John Freeman" Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. A disambiguation pagec is not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several others. Boleyn (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consider my !vote stricken. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9 Then would you consider this withdrawn? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination has been withdrawn but we still have an editor arguing for Deletion so this can not be closed as a Speedy Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Now a valid disambiguation page. BD2412 T 21:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now a valid DAB page. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:47, 28 March 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.

Montessori School of Duluth

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

Local elementary school with only local coverage. 🄻 🄰 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Minnesota. 🄻 🄰 17:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 16 external news media and other sources cited on the page. "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a secondary and reliable source." This page passes the threshold for inclusion by a wide margin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:My_article_got_nominated_for_deletion! MeepleMe (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of that coverage is local. 🄻 🄰 17:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your source for the requirement that it not be local coverage. I'm not finding that. 74.127.163.108 (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the guideline here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)/Audience requirement. 🄻 🄰 18:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Ideally, some references are from regional or national sources but local sources are not completely dismissed, they are just not valued as highly.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pantheist Society

AfDs for this article:

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

I thought that this could be cleaned up, and I thought that I had found an actual source on the subject, an encyclopaedia article on this very thing — only for my hopes to be dashed when I checked the article author Harold Wood Jr in the author listing of ISBN 9781441122780 and found that xe is the founder of this organization.

The one real claim to sourcing in the prior AFD discussion was that Special:Permalink/153980923#External links means that the article "is referenced". It was not. It is not. The article itself pointed and points solely to the organization's own WWW site and what used to be the personal WWW site of one of its directors. On the organization's own WWW site is an outright copy of the same encyclopaedia article by Wood Jr. This is the only documentation of this organization to be found anywhere, and it all comes back to autobiography. There is no independent sourcing at all.

The nominator and several of the participants in the prior AFD discussion were quite right, but were outvoted by "assuming there's a real source", comments on the nominator, and bizarre comments that seem to be saying that we should keep the pantheism article.

Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a lot of mentions of this, but it's hard to sort out them from any sigcov that may exist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You also have to see whether it's written by Harold Wood Jr, which all of the ones that I turned up turned out to be. One turns up a 1999 Encyclopaedia of Associations entry, for example, and it turns out that it points to the organization's old AOL site by Harold W. Wood Jr. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found [10], which is by J. Gordon Melton, which is fine. There's also this [11] which has a few pages of something. If I keep looking I could probably find enough to cobble together an article but there may be a merge / redirect target that is superior. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you actually, though? That Melton article spends most of its time explaining pantheism and doesn't get to the subject of the society until the penultimate paragraph, most of which is in quotation marks, with an annotation at the foot of the page that www.pantheist.net is the source; the Society's more recent WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If citing primary sources for what a group believes for our secondary/tertiary sources made them unreliable then would we have any sources for any religion? We can't cite them directly but of course someone who is analyzing their beliefs is going to cite their primary source materials (an analysis of Christian beliefs as expressed in the Bible would not be of much worth if it came from someone who had not read the Bible). I would question it more if they did not. And as to the length yeah it could be longer but it's not worthless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If I fail to find more sources/a better target, I would support a merge to Pantheism, since Melton explicitly connects the group to wider ideas about Pantheism PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's ironic, given the nominator, but we need more participation here from editors who are willing to cast "votes" otherwise it's up the closer's interpretation which is often labeled a "supervote" which the community has criticized in the past.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorrance Publishing Company

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

I see no SIRS sources, maybe except [12], but that may fall under TRADES. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Pennsylvania. Janhrach (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 25,000+ hits for this on newspapers.com. I would guess at least some of those are sigcov. Generally it is extremely difficult to find sigcov for prolific book publishers, not because it doesn't exist, but because it's drowned out by decades worth of citations to the books they published. Not voting but I would advise people be careful before they vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, they've been around for 100 yrs and you get a zillion hits in Gnews and Gscholar, but I can't find much about the company. I found a newspaper ad from 1939 and stuff published in 2022 from them. This is a hard one. Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that hard. Strange but untrue (talk · contribs) did some of the hard work back in 2015 finding that magazine source by Mick Rooney. And it's easy to filter out publication credits just by looking for things about the founder. That said, other than the Rooney 2014 source all that I've found is sources that lump this in with Vantage Press. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what I find online is around the book Why is Your Country at War by Lindburgh, gov't had the printing plates destroyed during WW1, "Why is your country at war gordon dorrance" brings up still lots of coverage, but the NY Times and others had articles about it, I'll see if I can free up some time later to go through them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some info found in obituaries for Gordon Dorrance that founded the company. This appears to be independent [13]. You can also look up about a class action lawsuit against the company recently. We probably have enough for a Basic stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nalanda Maha Vidyalaya, Elpitiya

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

Unsourced since 2009; I cannot find any sources; and there is no major reason to think that there would be sources, as it is a random small school in Sri Lanka. The alternate-language versions of this article also lack sourcing. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does say it was founded after a Japanese ocean raid, but I think it just means chronologically? In any case, there is no reliable secondary source. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, it exists [14]. There isn't much else to be found online that isn't a directly listing or facebook. It's been tagged since 2009, I'm thinking there isn't much else to find. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

small>

Delete: fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL. Dan arndt (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Pampier

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

Promotional advertisement masquerading as an article, non-notable youth activist, fails WP:ANYBIO or the GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and South Africa. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How did this get approved at AfC? I find no sourcing about this person, no hits of any kind, other than social media. Very non-notable due to the near complete lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator has been moving this page around the project but it has been returned to main space. I think they would like for it to be returned to Draft space, if editors here consider that a viable option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject doesn't pass notability guidelines. Yolandagonzales (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine George

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

Prodded by ToadetteEdit, deprodded by IP editor with comment "Kind Request to keep the page. Its very important." The only plausible pass of WP:NPROF that I see is a potential WP:NPROF C6 case, but I am doubtful that the college comprises a major academic institution. Is it a suborganization of Bengaluru North University? Bringing to AfD for clarity. I am a weak delete. Redirection to the college could potentially be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be straightforward. When I originally prodded the article, I saw that the subject doesn't meet the notability given that their research contributions are not widely cited and the sources are mostly primary. But then I am in doubt whether Kristu Jayanti College is a major institution or not, given that it was rated A++ by a governmental body and is affiliated with a major university. I am split between keeping and deleting but am not opposed to redirection. I will reconsider if someone provides proof whether the institute is major or not; otherwise, I will default to weak delete. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, Computing, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend towards weak keep. Kristu Jayanti College offers 17 or so master's degrees in a number of different subjects; this is no community college. If it were a Ph.D.-granting institution, it would be a "keep" from me. The article needs improvement - by which I mean it needs to be pared down substantially so that it has no CV-like sections. Qflib (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to note that the page has had one truly extreme attempt to add extremely problematic and promotional content to it since I started cleaning it up; this change was thankfully reverted by another editor. But if the page is kept it may have to be protected at some level to avoid it being turned back into an advertisement. Qflib (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence about this one. I think he probably does meet N6; the college has 12,000 students, according to the article about it - though this fact is unreferenced - which I think would make it major. But we do need some coverage of the principal to be able to have a BLP about him. The college's website's management page just says "Fr. Dr. Augustine George. Principal Secretary, Bodhi Niketan Trust". The only secondary source I can find is The Hindu, wayback archive, which reads like a press release and only says "The meet was presided over by Rev. Dr. Augustine George, college principal". The article about the college lists Augustine as principal, but the reference for that does not mention him and indicates Fr. Josekutty was then principal. Tacyarg (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With Weak Deletes and a Weak Keep, this may close as No consensus if there is no more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a massively falsely sourced biography, that turns out to be autobiography by Augustine George CMI (talk · contribs). All of the paragraphs that purport to be sourced turn out to just externally link to the WWW sites of the institutions tangentially mentioned, that confirm zero information stated in the article, either in its current or original forms. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After checking over references provided, most do not refer to the subject but rather refer to the places where the subject may have worked/studied. Nominally the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC guidelines for being the head of school, but that could be covered in a mere sentence. I admit I am skeptical of the WP:ACADEMIC guideline that says top-level administrators of colleges/universities are notable for being academic rather than their willingness to play politics. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- from commenters above and a quick look at the article there appear to be no good references either in the article or anywhere else. The current article barely says anything important about him other than that he's a professor, and it seems unlikely that it can be improved. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, following my comment above. There just isn't any coverage other than a few words. Tacyarg (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Mock Trial Competition

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Education. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Australia vs England in rugby league

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

An article which is essentially a head to head results of two different national teams is statistical overkill. These results are already in List of country NRLT Results. Would be fine if there was prose to explain the rivalry, but this also exists on the NT page or competition pages where the rivalry is mainly contested. Violates WP:NOSTATS and is repeated information. Mn1548 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, England, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, England, Oceania, Fiji, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Jayasekera

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

Was prodded by GSS with the rationale, "No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that establish notability. The currently cited sources provide nothing beyond passing mentions, and most are not reliable." Pretty spot on. Was immediately de-prodded by article creator, without any improvement. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klimaschutz- und Energie-Beratungsagentur Heidelberg-Nachbargemeinden gGmbH (KliBA)

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

WP:NOT is not met. Landpin (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears it could be promotional but otherwise is not written in a strong tone and does not appear to be notable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, no coverage so fails WP:GNG. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYMD-DTV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It can be redirected to TV5 Network. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:20, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Museu de Memes

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

no reliable sources, fails gng ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 15:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing a decent amount of Portuguese-language content on Google and Google Books. Anerdw (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I did not find any WP:SIGCOV, except for the source of Revista Piauí present in the article, and practically identical articles from Globo and Estadão. Also failed in WP:CONTINUED, since after the creation of the project in 2017, nothing else happened related to the subject. Svartner (talk) 11:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is relevant but needs to be improved. --Xrimonciam (talk) 10:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please cite the specific reliable sources you find here if you want to keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this one, for starters:
- Oliveira, Kaio Eduardo de Jesus; Couto, Edvaldo Souza; Porto, Cristiane (2021-11-19). ""Não sou obrigado a ser Cult" o museu de memes enquanto espaço de Educação, Inovação e divulgação científica". Revista da FAEEBA - Educação e Contemporaneidade (in Portuguese). 30 (64): 210–225. doi:10.21879/faeeba2358-0194.2021.v30.n64.p210-225.
Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anerdw Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hass

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a drummer, and not found reliable secondary sources to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMUSICIAN. He has released an album of his own, but it was self-published and I don't think it charted. No obvious redirect target. Note that I reverted from a longer version of the article, here, but there are no additional sources in that version and nothing that suggests notability to me. Tacyarg (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Tacyarg (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, musicians like this tend to fall short of WP's requirements for independent notability. I've seen it happen many times... Hass is one of those journeyman musicians who has made an honest living by stepping in whenever someone needs help for a tour or recording session, but he simply hasn't received his own significant coverage despite earning respect in the biz. He is only visible in the credits for other people's works and in self-created directory sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding and adding sources. The article needs a lot of trimming, but there are definitely reviews of his drum-playing within reviews of the albums and live performances he has played in. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several sources with SIGCOV, and many reviews of albums or live performances which describe his drumming. I believe this meets WP:MUSICBIO#1, and that he also meets WP:MUSICBIO#6, as a member of The Manhattan Transfer (on 4 albums from 2003-2009, and also touring), and Ravi Coltrane's first band from 1996 to 2002, as well as touring with John Scofield and Mavis Staples from 2005-2007. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen and the cleanup—as striking an example of WP:HEY that one could imagine. I would add the apparent compliance with WP:MUSICBIO #7 in that we have two reliable sources asserting the subject's playing style being a faithful representation of that of Elvin Jones; WP:NARTIST #1, where a trade magazine ranked the subject amongst the all-time top 500 in his field; WP:NARTIST #3, by playing a consequential part in a very large body of work; and WP:NARTIST #4C, through sources in the article containing critical reviews of the subject's work. StonyBrook _babble 07:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this was put up for deletion, there has been an overhaul of the sourcing. Looks good and notable — Maile (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayant Thapar (officer)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijayant Thapar * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
Perhaps previously the article didnt had enough references which are updated, such as his website, book published by a Colonel and other references which were published after 2016 (after the AFD took place) and they are being used as reference. The previous AFD took place 9 years ago, which is a long time. Again, neither does this article fail WP:BIO nor I have used any fabricated references. This article fulfills all the criteria of WP:BIO. All the references used are cross checked and up to date. There are other articles as well on officers who got Vir Chakra with much less references. Pl check the list of officers with Vir Chakra.[15]. I think deleting the article based on an AFD which took place 9 years ago is not justified , as maybe that time the article didnt had much reliable references and the person had not gotten enough media coverage. I am unsure why an user is saying the article contains 'salted materials', perhaps you should check the references I have used. -- CaptShayan — Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My use of the word "salt" refers to WP:SALT. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I get it that the article was recreated after getting deleted. But this time the article contains better and accurate references. It does not fail WP:BIO nor WP:NOTE.

I don't think it's okay to delete an article based on an AFD which took place years ago AS the article is an updated version of the previous deleted article with more accurate references. CaptShayan (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More then half of the references I have used were published a few years after the AFD took place, so it is not 'repost' of previously deleted articles. You can check the date of the references. CaptShayan (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin WP:SALTs an article, then they are declaring that they do not want an article on that subject to be created. Recreating an article at an incorrect title to circumvent that block is inherently disruptive behavior as I see it. Other members of the community are apparently more tolerant of this than me, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't created at an incorrect title, as he was an serving officer of Indian Army. However, I don't understand why don't you want a better version of a previously deleted article which had poor citations. CaptShayan (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was created at an incorrect title. We only disambiguate articles when there's something else to disambiguate them from - I refuse to believe you didn't try to create this at Vijayant Thapar, see you weren't able to, and resort to this hack to get it done anyway. And I will do everything in my power to stamp that sort of trickery out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a trickery but a willing to contribute. CaptShayan (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want to believe, believe it man. But I hope you will at least let others contribute to this AFD instead of taking a decision on the basis of a 9 years old AFD CaptShayan (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am letting others contribute. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:CaptShayan seems to be cavassing editors to participate in this process, namely (Explicit, Redrose, and Significa liberdade). BusterD (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page title seems to demonstrate gaming a clear G4 outcome to me... BusterD (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BusterD: If you and Pppery feel a G4 deletion makes more sense, feel free to go ahead. I initially declined the G4 nomination due to the age of the AFD, as well as a more complicated history in draftspace following the 2016 deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the decline is a preferable choice; I was merely stating the obvious (that they were gaming a clear speedy by using the disambiguator). BusterD (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the old AfD is getting some reading in this process by newer editors. Note the way we used to rely on the Military History Project's WP:SOLDIER as a standard, back before this purely project guide was deprecated. BusterD (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for two principle reasons. First, I agree with Pppery that the article was likely created in an attempt to evade the salting at Vijayant Thapar - better to have drafted the article and submitted it via WP:AFC, where the discussion on the article's merits could properly have taken place. Second, it is a clear copyright infringement, probably {{db-copyvio}}-worthy, of this honourpoint.in source (and also [16], though this in itself may be taken from the honourpoint.in source) - pretty much the entire Kargil War section is copied or closely paraphrased in chunks from that. My third, somewhat secondary, reason is that this seems to be a clear instance of WP:BIO1E, in that Thapar was only notable for his action at Battle of Tololing. Taking all that into account, I suggest deleting this article, with no objection to a couple of encylopedic sentences about Thapar included in the Battle of Tololing article in an appropriate place, referenced to the Ebury Press book, which looks like the best source. I would then have no objection to Vijayant Thapar being created as a redirect to Battle of Tololing. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The gallantry award is the third-highest in India and would be equivalent to something like the Military Cross in the UK. Now, we have 2,170 articles on MC holders (out of 52,204 awarded) but if you look at as random selection (Category:Recipients of the Military Cross) then the vast majority either (a) have also received a higher award such as the Victoria Cross or (b) are notable in themselves - either very high-ranking officers or notable for something outside of their military service. Black Kite (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Frieske

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

Non-notable German handball player. I was unable to find any in-depth sources about him. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: silver medallist from the 1970 World Men's Handball Championship, according to de:wiki. Geschichte (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Notable for the following reasons: (see German Wikipedia for a slightly more detailed entry)

East German Handball Champion: He was a goalkeeper for the team that won the "DDR-Meister: (East German Championship) in 1964.
International Handball Player: Frieske played for the East German national handball team.
World Championship Appearances: He represented East Germany in the World Handball Championships in 1964, 1967, and 1970, with the team finishing 2nd place in 1970.
Olympian: He competed as part of the East German handball team at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich. He played in 6 out of 6 games during the tournament. The team played in the bronze medal match, but was edged out by Romania (19-16), finishing in 4th place.

References that I found clicking Google News above were in German. — ERcheck (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ERcheck and sources which I found [17] and [18]. Note: Some sources wrote Rainer instead of Reiner. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DZET-TV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It can be redirected to TV5 Network. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 15:13, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network per nomination. Same goes with DWTE, DWNA, DYTE and DXER.

SolidKapuso2020 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "redirect" votes above doesn't have in significant coverage in various reliable and independent sources. It might be redirect to List of television and radio stations owned by TV5 Network per Wikipedia:BLAR.

SolidKapuso2020 (talk) 11:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indoor Cricket World Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 15:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snovi

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

Snovi is a Croatian band. The page relies solely on self-published sources (Facebook page, Bandcamp) and doesn't have any reliable independent sources. Based on WP:Band. Google News don't show anything related to Snovi. Other wikis don't have a page for Snovi. LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:39, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found in Gnews. Gsearch only brings up bandcamp, youtube an their website. Sourcing now in the article is non-RS as the nom states. Not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi 10-taka note

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

My reason:

According to Wikipedia's rules, to create a separate article on a subject, its notability must be proven with reliable secondary sources. But this article lacks any independent, secondary sources to establish the notability of the Bangladeshi 10-taka note. Currently, only two primary sources (Numista and the Bangladesh Bank website) have been used. However, these only provide information about the note’s design and history. There is no independent research or newspaper analysis on this topic. As a result, it is not particularly notable. A brief mention of this information in the Bangladeshi taka article is sufficient.

Though the Copyvio tool shows 17.4% violation, I myself checked the article's text with its sources (https://en.numista.com/catalogue/note204788.html and https://www.bb.org.bd/en/index.php/currency/tentaka) and observed that the article's sentences are almost word-for-word taken from these pages. This is "close paraphrasing" according to Wikipedia policies and is copyright violation.

The article is purely based on the content of the two websites. There is no original analysis or secondary source. It is nothing but a compilation of primary source information, which is a blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article is nothing but a compilation of facts and lacks any analysis or relevance.

Above all, a separate article on a specific currency note should be prepared only if the note is indeed unique and requires in-depth information. But the information on the 10-taka note is so limited that it can be included as a short section in the article of Bangladeshi taka. For example, there are no separate articles on the currency notes of the majority of countries because they are not of particular significance.

Accordingly, I request that this article be removed on the grounds of WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOR, and WP:SPINOUT.

SMYTI (tk|CNTBTN)

08:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some sources about the subject not included on the article. And if we search in historical newspapers then maybe it will be possible to add more content to the article. I will say keep. Mehedi Abedin 17:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reason. Please reconsider.

SMYTI (tk|CNTBTN)

20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? According to Copyvio tool, it only violated 17.4% and all of them are from using repeated parts "Portrait of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the Father of the Nation" (5 times) and "Bangladesh Bank's logo and '10 taka' in Bengali text" (1 time). It could be copyedited, not a serious copyright issues. Mehedi Abedin 00:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Operatic Society

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

Completely unnotable. Searching it up yields 71 results on google, with none being anything that would indicate any form of notability. Absolutely zero significant coverage by outside sources. Article is also quite promotional, and at times reads like an advert. Article is also extraordinarily outdated, listing events in 2018 as upcoming. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Music, Theatre, Entertainment, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inbox Pictures

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

This article is about a film production company that fails to meet notability. The article is sourced only to the company's web site. My search for coverage only turns up passing mentions about them when covering some films where the company was involved. This falls well short of being significant coverage. Whpq (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Milton by-election

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

WP:NOT is not met. Every week council by elections happen, many because of deaths of councillors. See https://opencouncildata.co.uk/byelections.php or https://www.localcouncils.co.uk/2025/01/robert-the-buchanan-wins-battle-of-bannockburn/

They are weekly occurrences that are plainly not notable for their own page. Unlike 1993 Millwall by-election, there literally is not anything specifically unusual about it. Landpin (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Landpin (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually by-elections are included in the election before or after, not in a separate article. Peter James (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward)#2019 by-election, you do not need to bring things like this to AFD. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Solvent Extractions

(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 should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like opening new plants, entering into new business segments like icecream, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:13, 28 March 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) 13:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYMB-TV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP. This article is permanently delete as per WP:PROD due to lack of standalone notability.

SolidKapuso2020 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYET-TV

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It can be redirected to TV5 Network. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Wikieditorial25 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 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 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Lack of sourcing, so delete this article.

~~SolidKapuso2020 (talk 13:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet[reply]

Delete per recent WP:PROD due to lack of standalone notability and sourcing.

~~Solid PU30 (talk)~~ 13:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC) Sockpuppet[reply]

Procedural delete for good as per SolidKapuso2020's rationale due to lack of sourcing. This will be the same goes with DXET since TV5 stations became the satellite station of DWET (excluding DXGB) because they will not bother finding reliable sources & add them to the article.

~~Wikieditorial25 (talk)~~ 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC) You already made your vote when nominating the article. – The Grid (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three users without talk pages show up at the same time, making identically formatted posts with the wording "procedural delete" which doesn't exist... Not suspicious behaviour at all... Geschichte (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reported them. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikieditorial25 WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SolidKapuso2020's rationale. Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.

~~Wikieditorial25 (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet[reply]

Comment Keep votes provide no sources to eval.

~~SolidKapuso2020 (talk 10:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet[reply]

Hyderabad Industries Limited

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. An alternative to deletion could be merging with CK Birla Group. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:09, 28 March 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) 13:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sesha Sindhu Rao

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

possibly an advertisement...almost all sources are unreliable..they did cite sources from The Times of India and The Hindu but that doesn't necessarily indicate significance. - AwfulReader^(talk) 07:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - AwfulReader^(talk) 07:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Added as many sources from youtube interviews on local Telugu news channels such as idream Media and NTV as possible. As the subject is an up and coming director, the citations are mostly from local news channels. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 07:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.amazon.com/prime-video/actor/Sesha-Sindhu-Rao/amzn1.dv.gti.dcd0065f-a6a0-4659-8012-46280ec9766a/

Sindhu is also listed as a director on Prime Video and is a person of significance. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: director of a notable film, Choosi Choodangaane; hence meeting WP:DIRECTOR. Needs trimming. -Mushy Yank. 11:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, United Arab Emirates, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears to be a case of COI or UPE. But the subject looks notable. Zuck28 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on COI or UPE? Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu has been a person of significance in the industry since before she became a director as well. Featured here in this article from 2017 https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/tollywood/220817/women-in-the-mens-world.html Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chakrabartyprateek14, Do you know her personally? Zuck28 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chakrabartyprateek14 there's a lot of information about her personal life and career, which is not easily verifiable with the given citations.

also you uploaded a copyrighted image of her, which was uploaded on IMDb already without any photographers name or copyright information. But you mentioned the name of the photographer as well. How do you know all of this? Zuck28 (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This information and anecdotes were shared with me by the subject herself. Most of which I tried to include citations for.

While uploading the picture.. I asked the subject for the photographer's name and credentials. And the photographer waived off any rights that may raise any copyright issues. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photo you uploaded is missing the permissions from the copyright holder and the information you asked from the subject directly is not supposed to be on Wikipedia without any reference. Most likely it appears to be a case of COI or UPE.

But I will leave this matter into the hands of some other experienced editor or admin.

Zuck28 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do COI or UPE mean? If it helps, whatever is un-cited/un-referenced, can be toned down or taken off.

Please do suggest. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:COI & wp:UPE Zuck28 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these.

I'll add appropriate tags for COI.

If you can help with editing or trimming down content where you see necessary, it would be helpful. Chakrabartyprateek14 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightcom Group

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

A suspended company from the stock exchange. Fails WP:NCORP, and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:04, 28 March 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) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recoil (1998 film)

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

Was PROD’d for lack of general notability and WP:NFILM; an IP editor removed the PROD tag with the edit summary “Gary Daniels and Robin Curtis…” so now we go to AfD. The only mention I could find beyond the usual churn of IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes was a blog called Unknown Movies which does not cut the mustard in my opinion. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usually movies are easy. There are huge "movie guide" books with casts, productions, and potted summaries, and "DVD guides" and so forth. But this one appears to have escaped inclusion in any books that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added things. A redirect to the director was warranted anyway and a PROD certainly not appropriate. Meets WP:NFILM. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the references you added were to WordPress blogs and have been removed. I disagree that the sources provided show the sufficient coverage to establish notability per this language from the guidelines: “Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides.” (emphasis added) Kazamzam (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(the 2 sources hosted by WP have been removed but were used only to verify the film was called a B-movie). For the rest, PRECISELY, the OTHER sources I added in the Reception section are reliable and include "critical commentary"!!!!! And that's pretty obvious. -Mushy Yank. 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank - the other reference used was to a publication by Books on Demand which is generally not considered reliable or suitable to establish notability. Also removed. The references you included from TV Spielfilm and Filmdienst fall under the category of a capsule review ("a relatively short critique of a specified creative work") and Schnittberichte seems to be another blog. So I disagree that these are reliable or that they establish notability per the WP:NFILM criteria. Kazamzam (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the material you judged appropriate to remove during an AfD you yourself initiated (and that was, again, not used to establish notability but for verification, in an attempt to improve the page), I still think that we have enough with the 3 sources. Of course, Filmdienst is reliable, for example. If others think a Redirect is better, I also mentioned that possibility. Opposed to deletion. I have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With sourcing, my rule of thumb is to only add sourcing that would be considered reliable by most or all Wikipedians. I tend to avoid SPS unless I can find where the sourcing or the writer has been cited as a RS multiple times in academic/scholarly sources (or other appropriate sourcing). The only exception would be for interviews, however I try to only add those after notability has been more firmly established. My rationale for this is that adding SPS or dubious sourcing can actually end up making an article seem less notable rather than more, even if it's being used to back up basic, non-controversial information. As far as capsule reviews go, I consider a capsule review to be a 1-3 sentence review where all but a handful of words are a plot summary.

Looking at the reviews in the article, Filmjahrbuch 2000 and TV Spielfilm are pretty short and would be considered a capsule review by most. Filmdienst is a bit of a wild card, as I get the impression that the snippet we see is a summary or a smaller part of a longer review given the clickable box that says "to the film review". Clicking that brings up a paywall and part of a first sentence ("Because his youngest son was looking for a...") that is slightly different than the first sentence in the snippet. So this one is probably usable - it also helps that out of the four sentences in the snippet, two are wholly review and not summary. That's one usable review, so then it becomes a question of what else is usable.

Schnittberichte is unusable. It's all user submitted content and while there are moderators, they are only looking for violations of the ToS. The site itself says that they are not liable for anything written by their editors, so that means that there's no editorial oversight of the content. In other words, view it as you would IMDb.

MovieWeb is Valnet. Much of their stuff is considered to be questionable as they tend to rely heavily on churnalism and AI content. WikiProject Video Games has a whole section about it as far as sourcing goes. The gist of that section is that Valnet sources are weak at best and are not great for establishing notability. I would say that MovieWeb would likely be considered situational per WP:VG's sourcing guide. With that in mind, this appears to be written by a staff member and there's a decent amount of discussion within the article to consider it a review of sorts. I would say that it's usable but not the strongest source.

Tiempo de hoy is unknown - I can't get a good glimpse in the snippet view to know if it is usable or not. The Video Source Book would be a capsule review, so a trivial source at best. Flickering Myth is a decent source, but it's a trivial mention so also can't establish notability.

That leaves us with two sources: Filmdienst and MovieWeb. Both could be considered reviews. Technically that's all we need to pass NFILM, two reviews, but it would be an extremely weak pass. I'm going to see what else I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - thank you for your thorough analysis of the sources, ReaderofthePack. I had come to the same conclusion about the Filmdienst one being but a snippet of the full review that is behind a paywall, so that's one source to go towards WP:GNG or WP:NFO criterion 1 The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. I would say that it's a stretch to say that the MovieWeb review constitutes a "full-length review" (particularly as it's part of a top ten-style report). That leaves Tiempo de Hoy. We say that it's a weekly news magazine that, from 1987, tended to cover news about culture, entertainment, economy and sports. So it seems likely that it would have nationally-known film reviews in it. However, I too cannot see inside the book (which I guess is a compilation of published magazines) to establish whether it is a full review. I did also find this, in Chinese, also rather short. Taking all that into account, and given the age of the film the fact that any full reviews would more likely be in print media that is less likely to be online, I would give the benefit of the doubt and hence a weak keep. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now, we're at a Weak Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Islamic Studies

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#University of Islamic Studies. There was no support for this page as a redirect. An opinion from the RfD was that it is likely there are sources which aren't in English so it needs a full evaluation as an article. Jay 💬 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Islam, and Pakistan. Jay 💬 12:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Islam have a good spirituality but misguided by radicle ISIS to students.

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/news/prevent-reinforces-negative-views-of-islam-and-muslims-new-report-says Fly nest (talk) 13:35, 29 March 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clever Bins

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this company which manufactured solar-powered bins with advertising, and cannot find coverage to add. The existing references are primary sources or local newspapers. I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Redirect to the company's founder, William Sachiti, might also work. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a small amount of press related to the show it was on but not enough to establish NCORP. Would agree a redirect would be appropriate but not to the promotional page for the founder. Instead, redirect to List of Dragons' Den (British TV programme) offers Series 1-10 where it is covered. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NCORP, and WP:GNG (if it was actually a notable company, one might wonder why it seems to have gone out of business without anyone commenting). As suggested above, possibly a redirect to the relevant TV series article would seem to be justified, certainly nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and those above. A clear WP:NCORP fail on coverage. BD2412 T 22:44, 28 March 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.

Heng Xiaofan

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

Seems to fail NPOL and GNG; not a notable public office holder Cinder painter (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the positions this person has held satisfy NPOL. All information about them appears purely desciptive of a policeman occupying various positions as they ascend the party heirarchy, but no information available beyond what one would see on a resume. Does not satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are numerous Chinese sources with SIGCOV on the subject, many of which document his life as both a politician and a poet, including Caixin[19], The Paper[20], and The Beijing News[21]. (He has published several award-winning poetry collections, see Shanghai Observer [zh][22]) His political career has also received media coverage, such as Oriental Daily News[23] and The Paper[24]. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 11:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Goldsztajn's assessment that his posts do not qualify him for NPOL – all the important ones are prefaced with "deputy" or "vice". Most of the sources cited in the article are essentially CVs. But there are some sources with more coverage out there. The very last paragraph of this source [25] mentions him winning several poetry awards, and, along with this source's mention of a report in The Paper, prompted me to look further. The Paper has indeed published two articles covering his poetry in some depth. [26][27] Add to that links 1 and 2 from Prince of Erebor, and I don't know if this is enough to show that he's a notable poet, but I think it's just enough sigcov to meet the GNG. (I originally wrote this comment yesterday but forgot to post it. I have revised it to take into account Prince of Erebor's sources.) Toadspike [Talk] 15:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As others have mentioned, Heng has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and does meet WP:NPOL. Cyrobyte (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Investindustrial

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

Appears to be a non-notable organization. All sources are affiliated or routine business news. Google search didn't find anything other than these kinds of sources. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Citadel (2020 video game)

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. Unfortunately just not seeing strong secondary sourcing to justify an article. A search yields only ambiguous or poor sources per WP:VG/S, in addition to the cited Rice Digital (Inconclusive) I can find a non-review Niche Gamer article [28] (Unreliable) and an unavailable publication called E1M1 Magazine (Unknown) that Mobygames purports to be a review. Even generously taking all these, I don't think this quite hits notability - there just isn't enough reliable critical commentary about the game to suggest it's notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three total sources in the article and two of them are Steam links which do not specifically show notability. Only other information I can find on this game are YouTube videos, IMDB pages and other UGC type websites which are unreliable. Definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. Rambley (talk) 11:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failed to find sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Emiya Mulzomdao (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lot of information on this game - I took from the sources that I could. I put a lot of time into trying to find sufficient sources. So this indie game doesn't deserve a wikipedia page because it doesn't have "enough coverage"? Its existence is obvious. It has a decent following. Can you please explain in more detail what is "unreliable" about this? Does a game's existence need to be talked about enough in order to "earn" its rite to have a wikipedia page?

If I add links to https://steamdb.info/app/1378290/info/ or https://www.fanatical.com/en/game/the-citadel perhaps, or to its sequel Beyond Citadel with various more links such as https://aftermath.site/beyond-citadel-indie-retro-shooter, is there any way I can save this page?

Can you please provide some constructive feedback as to how I can save this page? From your commentary on "notability", this sounds a lot like "it isn't popular enough, so it doesn't get to have a wikipedia page". Is this basically what this means? Ershnuff (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining policy, notability is generally a standard that sets a threshold for what subject matter is worth encyclopedic coverage. The general guideline for notability is a loose principle that suggests that notable topics should, at a minimum, have significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For video games, there are no formal policies, but informal standard that we often take involves giving weight to reliable coverage on video games particularly through commentary and review often provided by reviews as opposed to direct announcements or links to the game. In short, everyone has different takes on notability, but it's generally there to make sure that the information in an article are substantiated by reasonably wide and independent coverage about a subject.

Applying that policy to your comments - the article currently has some links from the Steam page and a single review from a obscure reviewer. It's not a particularly strong basis to suggest the game is notable. Sourcing is unfortunately the bedrock of including articles. It's generally recognised that just because something has a following, or it is a topic that exists, doesn't make it a topic that can justify an article without sourcing to back it up. It's not that it needs to be talked about or prove its worth - it just needs enough reliable, independent information, and that information is currently lacking. A good rule of thumb is that if a game hasn't recieved coverage from reliable sources - often being mainstream sources - or lacks in-depth coverage from multiple sources, it's likely not notable.

Seeing if that coverage is out there is a good approach - the search engine, Metacritic MobyGames, and Internet Archive are tools I use when scoping out an idea for an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the suggested sources, SteamDB is a primary source and generally not reliable for coverage about a game. Fanatical seems like a user review database - player reviews are also generally not reliable. And information about a sequel is good and helpful to include on a page, but doesn't really show that the original game itself is notable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does IGN Japan's interview of the creator count as reliable and help its notability? Does it being in Japanese detract from it? https://jp.ign.com/the-citadel-game/49370/interview/fpsthe-citadel90fps . If IGN Japan covered it, shouldn't this inclusion bolster notability?

Also, I want to contest why the creator's interview with Niche Gamer at https://nichegamer.com/doekuramori-interview-the-citadel-harassment-and-how-to-make-your-voice-heard-in-japan/ doesn't count as reliable. Why does this interview with the developer himself not count as reliable or notable? Someone has removed everything I wrote from his interview, which was a treasure trove of information about this game and his insights, saying "citation needed". The Niche Gamer piece isn’t a score slapped on a gameplay rundown, it’s Doekuramori laying out his solo dev journey, influences (Doom, Marathon, anime), and vision. That’s meaty, primary insight and is way more than “promotional fluff.” I don't understand Emiya Mulzomdao's "non-review" comment about the Niche Gamer interview, calling it unreliable. Ershnuff (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added mentions from aforementioned IGN Japan article and PC Gamer article which is about the game's sequel "Beyond Citadel" but makes commentary on both: https://www.pcgamer.com/games/fps/beyond-citadel-is-a-great-retro-fps-that-i-want-to-recommend-to-everybody-and-nobody/. Please advise. Ershnuff (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilfillan Biotic Area

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

The full text of this article was cut and pasted from its sole source because there is no other coverage that isn't copied from this article. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 12:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is confused about the lake, too. The Gilfillan lake that is named after Joseph Gilfillan is (per Brower 1893, p. 288 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrower1893 (help)) in Itasca State Park. This article is talking about an area in the Chippewa National Forest. Uncle G (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Brower, J. V. (1893). The Mississippi River and its source. Collections of the Minnesota Historical Society. Vol. 7. Minnesota Historical Society. p. 288. (The Mississippi River and its source at the Internet Archive)

Hoax letter writers

AfDs for this article:

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

This is effectively a list. Unfeferenced, safe for one example, fails WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:V and has issues with WP:OR. The concept of a hoax letter (or prank letter, a term suggested as better in the 2008 no consensus AfD) is not defined in an article, nor is it even a category. As a final straw, many of the purported examples do not even make it clear what is the "hoax letter", consider for example this: "Edna Welthorpe was a prudish middle-aged housewife who was strongly opposed to her creator Joe Orton's plays." Uh, what? Other examples seem to be about fictional works (books) with the word letter in the title, about fictional collection of letters, or emails, or... This is one of the worst lists I've seen in my years here, a total mess. PS. It is possible the concept of a hoax or prank letter is notable, but it would need to be written from scratch (WP:TNT...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Fictional elements, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Massacre (video game)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Muslim Massacre (video game) (3rd nomination)

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

While there is a lot of content and sourcing, all the sourcing present is limited to a specific time frame, failing to demonstrate sustained notability. Research into discussion on the subject down the road has turned up largely empty. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While most sources are from September 2008, when the game as initially released, later sources are easily found 1 2 3 including books and a peer-reviewed scientific paper. The article already has a later source, a book named Halos and Avatars, as well. Cortador (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's current sourcing is more than enough to prove notability. Sustained coverage is not required per WP:NVG (similar to guidelines such as WP:NBOOK), and WP:SUSTAINED does not say that sustained coverage is required for notability - only that it is an indicator of notability. This is a case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY. (Or not, as the sources found by Cortador show.) Astaire (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. SUSTAINED is for events (and basically people because of BLP1E) not media. Otherwise 95% of the media we have articles on wouldn't be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources provided and in the article are sufficient to keep. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

101 Dalmatians: Escape from DeVil Manor

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

Unfortunately non-notable. The sourcing for this article is quite spotty, and a search for reviews on MobyGames and the Internet Archive only really yields the one AllGame source. They say every dog has its day, but sadly maybe not this one. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camera, hand lens, and microscope probe

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

Fails GNG. For reference, CHAMP was a proposed instrument that doesn't seem to have been included in the Mars Science Laboratory. Originally proposed at https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090007927 - all sources I can find are either primary (authored by one or more of the inventors) or mention the instrument only in passing. Deprodded on account of Google Scholar hits, but I don't think any of those articles are secondary. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Spaceflight. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all conference papers, as far as I can find. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mbaziira Tonny

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Also, this article contains promotional content Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Opayemi

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for persons Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G.K Pillai

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A lot of media references are personally relevant. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. Brenner

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability beyond his public role. Most references are links to Patrick's op-eds and do not reflect his activities or significance Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of articles either quoting him or written by him, but not enough about him as an individual. I don't find sources we can use and what's now for sourcing in the article is only things by him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Most are written by him or are quotations. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Sink

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. A lot of media references are personally relevant. Also, this article contains promotional content Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable academic, her work gets reference quite a bit: [29]. Fulmard (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is a Pew Marine Fellow and has received major awards for her work from the Society for Conservation Biology and WWF. A JSTOR search returns multiple peer-reviewed papers in respected journals such as Conservation Biology, Diversity and Distributions, and Marine Ecology Progress Series, all WP:RS. She clearly meets WP:PROF. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Likely passes Academic notability, with the Pew award. Also listed as a co-author for a chapter in a text book [30]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guiffy SureMerge

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

Non-notable paid software product; fails WP:NPROD. The "reviews" only briefly describe the software features without any independent analysis. The only independent coverage is three sentences here, not enough for WP:NPROD. I couldn't find any other non-trivial coverage. Undeleted in 2014 after PROD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found the original download.cnet.com staff review here, but a single one-paragraph review is not enough for WP:NPROD. Again, the Tucows sources only list a few software features rather than independently reviewing the product. If kept, the article should be moved to Guiffy eXpert, since the reviews are about the entire software bundle. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PROMO. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Between Night and Day

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to locate any WP:SIGCOV on this film. The few hit I did get in google books were all highly perfunctory and did not rise to level of coverage as described in WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added things; seems notable enough; a redirect is absolutely warranted so needless to say I am very opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 13:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal and Spain. -Mushy Yank. 16:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to what has already been added, there seems to be some SIGCOV here, though I don't have access. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Janata Dal

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

I couldn't find enough reliable independent sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability for this political party. I note that searching is tricky because socialist Janata Dal (where the adjective socialist describes Janata Dal) and Socialist Janata Dal (a splinter group of Janata Dal I think) are effectively the same thing to search engines! It is possible that there are decent sources not in English, and if they were added to the article I would willingly withdraw my nomination. I had previously redirected this article to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but that has been widely contested by a COI editor and their related sock puppets in the past (see history), and now an IP user is reverting to the same poorly sourced material. Hence my nomination for deletion. I would support a redirect to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but only if it were subject to extended-confirmed protection. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unida Christian Colleges

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

Has been unsourced since its inception in 2010. Fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you're confusing being unsourced with failing GNG. There appears to be an appropriate amount of potential citations in Google, Google News, and Google Scholar. I saw a substantial number of false positives in Newspapers search. I recommend a BEFORE search and reassess. Jclemens (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no confusion. There are no viable sources at all available even. All I got is the official website, the Facebook page, LinkedIn and generic university directories. There is an article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer but that is an advertorial for the Climate Action Project. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is more what I had in mind--things that aren't pieces about the institution, but everyday things you would expect to see substantiating it as what the article describes it to be. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fruitless WP:RS search that passes WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Jclemens, are you arguing to Keep this article or any particular outcome?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, I guess. The sourcing appears marginal but indicates that sufficient sourcing likely exists paywalled or offline. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglais

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

A classic case of a redirect with possibilities being needlessly disambiguated. Yes, this term is French for English, but WP:DAB explicitly states that a disambiguation page is not a foreign language dictionary. Sure, there are historical ties between English and French, but this could be said for any number of pairs of languages; it doesn't warrant foreign language disambiguation for all of them. Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and England. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural close~~. This is not proposed as an article for deletion: the nominator's preferred disposal is to redirect it, and no policy reason to delete is offered. Just redirect it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shhhnotsoloud, already tried, was reverted because it was previously an RfD. Consensus has established that AfD is the correct venue for controversial BLARs. — Anonymous 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. In which case, Redirect to Country dance. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A valid DAB, with at least four possibilities and maybe more: the dictionary definition, country dance, creme anglaise and Les Anglais in Haiti. (Note that anglaise redirects to country dance; it should redirect here.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dclemens1971, see WP:DABDICT and WP:PARTIAL. A dictionary definition is a textbook example of what to never put on a DAB page, while creme anglaise and Les Anglais are partial title matches whose subjects are not known as simply "anglais" alone. — Anonymous 14:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are enough of a conceptual match to overcome any concerns in this situation, and re: DABDICT, what I see here as a definition is fully compliant with the guidance on that page that a short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. "Creme anglaise" is at least as appropriate a navigational result as "country dance" for this word. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Dclemens1971, I don't follow. I'll grant that you could make the argument that a brief definition of the word anglais could not possibly hurt if there were a need for a DAB page to begin with, but providing the definition is not a reason for the existence of said page. Your response also seems to ignore WP:PARTIAL; unless you can provide a source showing where someone refers to "creme anglaise" as simply "anglais(e)" without the extra word, then it will only ever be a partial title match (same with "Les Anglaise"). However, there are sources that refer to the dance as simply "anglais". — Anonymous 16:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is extremely normal in cooking to refer to creme anglaise as just "anglaise" or "the anglaise", as in "Time to make the anglaise." See Dale-Roberts, The Test Kitchen; Foskett, Campbell and Patkins, Practical Cookery: Level 3; the Culinary Institute of America text Baking and Pastry; etc. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nobody calls Crème anglaise "Anglais", and we Brits just call it custard. "Anglais" isn't a plausible search term for "Law French", and as for the English language and people, it has been rightly said above that Wikipedia isn't a dictionary of foreign terms. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 unintentionally makes an argument against one of the supposed ambiguities. Checking, it turns out that those books never say "anglais" for crème anglaise and always say "anglaise".
However: subtract one, add one. "Anglaise" (also "Anglaise tardive") was an old name for the duke cherry, more formally known (after some jumping about the binomials over the years) as Prunus × gondouinii (redlinked at Prunus subg. Cerasus and List of Prunus species). Equally, I cannot find any good quality musical sources that use "anglais", in actual English, for country dance; only "Anglaise" or "Anglois", sometimes italicized, sometimes not. And no-one calls law French "Anglais" or "Anglaise", not least because that would be a complete misnomer. So:
- Anglaise is ambiguous between crème anglaise, the country dance, and Prunus × gondouinii
- This article title, anglais, is not actually used in English for anything listed on the disambiguation, and doesn't have its own plausible redirect target at all except to (ironically) anglaise.
The correct course of action seems to be to rename this to anglaise and make it a three-way disambiguation. It is typical of Wikipedia that we have it exactly backwards after 2 decades. Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Anglaise is just the feminine of anglais; it would be silly to have two separate dab pages for what is the same word in French. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a good thing that I did not say to do that, then. Please read what I actually said that I think to be the correct course of action to take. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G I wasn't saying you said that, I was just pointing out that they are the same word so one dab page will suffice. Often harder to get to a consensus for "move" than for "keep" since a move is an editorial decision, but if it's anglaise instead of anglais, no skin off my nose either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Daher Gadid

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

Declined prod with reason "Long international athletics career". That in itself does not meet WP:NATH or WP:SPORTSCRIT. The 2 sources added are essentially databases and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage in Gbooks or newspapers, Gnews is also empty. A regular Gsearch only brings up rankings in various events. Does not pass notability for athletes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The intention of NSPORTS2022 was to weed out athletes who are only known for participating in a single Olympics, but that doesn't apply in this instance because the subject went far beyond merely participating, finishing as the top distance runner from his country for multiple global championships over 20-year timespan. In particular he finished runner-up at the Lille Half Marathon (see ARRS, WLH) in a performance that would have merited significant coverage in his country.

I tried to search Djiboutian newspapers like La Nation, but its website is timing out for me and I'm not sure if their archives go back to the 1990s. Keep in mind there was a well-known digitization gap in the 1990s when the subject was most active, before most newspapers began publishing online but after most physical archives end. Another avenue would be French newspapers in the 1990s, given that's where much of his racing history was. Given the amount of results info we have (way more than most Olympians nominated lately), I think the WP:NEXIST case is strong here. --Habst (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a French website reprinting an article from La Nation, which describes (I think) some sort of marathon training course that was taught by "a group of runners led by the great Omar Daher". The nation's press referring to him as "the great" indicates significance – still searching though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aceflux

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

Does not warrant its own article. Extremely short article that can easily be incorporated into the gray asexuality article, which it is directly associated with. It can also be easily covered in sexual fluidity as well. I don't think this warrants its own article, nor do I think there are enough reliable sources to justify it. DocZach (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DocZach (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially since most of the info seems to be on etymology of the term and not aceflux as asexuality in it of itself. Should be put into gray asexuality. Urchincrawler (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly it's undoubtedly referenced with reliable sources. not all of them are, but there are more than 5 RS and at least more than 10 that are not RSP.

All its content is verified with inline citations and is definitely notable beyond asexual community. I wouldn't oppose a merger though. --MikutoH ^talk! 14:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Argument against merging (incorporating), or redirecting; this is a neologism: To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term. Anything short of deletion and Wikipedia is advancing neologism, adding to the increased usage of the term. One questionable source stated that those who identify as aceflux automatically identify as asexual. Another, equally questionable states the subject falls within the asexual Spectrum. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable and WP:independent sources, I looked at the sources on the article. Two, "What does it mean to be aceflux? This micro-label is gaining traction in the asexual community" and "A-flux" (in Brazilian Portuguese)" reference the subject. The subject is supposedly an "inherently ever-changing identity". The rest of the sources are about various asexual, asexual-affirming, or the asexual spectrum. One source is a hijacking as a form of advocacy. A crash course (44 tabs determining notability) can include Asexuality (Sex-negative, Sex-neutral, and Sex-positive) cupiosexual, akiosexual, fraysexual, autochorissexual, demisexuality, Aromanticism (aro-ace), akoisensual (not the same as akiosexual: Also referred to as akionesexual and lithsexual), demisensual (demiromantic), sensualflux, acespike, pansexuals, Omnisexual (like pansexuals but are not gender-blind), quoisexual, orchidsexual, burstsexual, Skoliosexual, gray asexuality (between asexuality and sexuality also referred to grey-ace), allosexual, placioromantic, abroromantic, Gynesexual, Apothiromantic, Androsexual and Requiesromantic. If one is exploring their sexual orientation, they are "questioning". -- Otr500 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fraysexuality

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

This article is a stub that can be easily incorporated and merged into one of the existing articles on asexuality, including gray asexuality, asexuality, or demisexuality. There are little to no reliable sources in this article, and I don't see how "fraysexuality" at all warrants its own article. DocZach (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. DocZach (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gray asexuality. The article itself defines the subject as a subsector of grey asexuality, and the article on gray asexuality does already have subsections dedicated to other such 'subsectors'. Thus it is indeed questionable why this subsector in particular would warrant its own article. Brat Forelli🦊 22:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Marazzi

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

Fails NACADEMIC Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails A7. No indication of significance in the article or literature. All I'm finding in my BEFORE are his books, interviews, and profiles. Anerdw (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NAUTHOR on the basis of being the author of multiple notable works. Reviews for The Violence of Financial Capitalism: [31] [32] [33] [34]. Reviews for Capital and Language: [35] [36] [37]. Reviews for Capital and Affects: [38] [39] [40]. I didn't do a deep search for non-English language reviews, but there are definitely plenty of additional reviews of his books under their original non-English titles as well, e.g. [41] [42]. His citation record is also pretty good and I found a few additional scholarly works directly about his ideas [43] [44], which suggests to me that he might have a case for WP:NPROF, although I haven't looked closely enough to say so with confidence. But I think he clearly passes WP:NAUTHOR regardless. MCE89 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. Thank you for finding so many sources and presenting them so clearly. This is easily enough to meet NAUTHOR#3, and possibly even criteria 1 and 2. Toadspike [Talk] 23:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 International Masters League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and ~~WP:GNG~~ WP:NSPORTSEVENT for standalone season articles. Vestrian24Bio 03:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 03:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The correct specific policy on this topic is WP:NSEASONS. There it is clear that notability is dependent on how much media coverage games get. The article topic features games which have each had coverage (in depth match reports) in major national newspapers. Taking just the second game as an example (as a stronger test case because it doesn't involve the hosts India, who featured in the first), one can find detailed reports in The Hindu, SportsMax, Outlook, Business Standard, Hindustan Times and so on. Detailed reports are key because they go way beyond what might be described as WP:ROUTINE, which is where people try to derive notability for sporting events and seasons from the mere reporting of match scores. So WP:NSEASONS appears clearly to be met. I would note that the nominator has proposed this AfD a bare 89 minutes after their AfD for International Masters League (the page detailing the competition as a whole) was closed as no consensus - a discussion in which I was involved (but very few others). It may help people to read that discussion there. OsFish (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:NSEASONS~~ WP:NSPORTSEVENT says, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game" - even if you don't agree with it these are all still WP:ROUTINE coverage.

What you're doing here is just WP:ONLYGUIDELINE and WP:ATTP. Vestrian24Bio 07:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:NSEASONS does not say that. You've read the wrong policy. You're quoting WP:NSPORTSEVENT, the policy for individual games. WP:ROUTINE does not apply as I made clear above, because the policy there says "Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine" (emphasis added). I explicitly linked to detailed coverage, not mere reporting of sports scores. The argument you make implies that ANY newspaper coverage of sports matches cannot be considered relevant for notability of a tournament. That's quite clearly against WP:NSEASONS which attaches notability to the extent of coverage of games in general. OsFish (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's my mistake. But, none of WP:NSEASONS apply to this; it's for article such as 2025 Chennai Super Kings season and 2025 Sydney Roosters season (Individual season articles for top-level professional teams). Vestrian24Bio 08:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you simply want to go by WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, which is the presence of discriminating, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, independent of the topic, then notability is clearly met. Uncontroversially so. OsFish (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes to my opening comment now. Vestrian24Bio 11:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTSEVENT does not apply here because that is about a single game or a "series" in the North American sense of a championship decider where the top or final two teams playing a short series of matches against each other. As the policy says, "The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league". This article here is about a tournament featuring several teams. WP:SIGCOV is easily met. There are multiple RS directly and solely about the tournament. (SIGCOV is a subset of GNG). OsFish (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another of these non-notable masters cricket tournaments. The coverage of this is all trying to claim notability by notable players, which is a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to an example of such claims? I see absolutely no claims based upon the notability of players. OsFish (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources above being listed as "detailed reports" are just WP:ROUTINE coverage of cricket matches. Most of the sources in the article care more about the players because of their notable careers rather than this tournament. There are tonnes of these masters cricket tournaments, and every time one turns up, people create (and often re-create) articles for them, and almost every time they get deleted as non notable and just trying to violate WP:NOTINHERITED. I see nothing different from the sources here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, WP:ROUTINE refers to the reporting of scores, not write-ups of matches. On your reading, ALL sports competition articles would be non-notable. An editor’s personal antipathy towards these tournaments isn’t a reason for deletion, nor is the anticipation of arguments that haven’t been made. OsFish (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the patent article International Masters League only just survived and AFD, we don't need separate season articles for barely/questionably notable tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the criteria of WP:NSEASONS are met because it isn't a season of a high level tournament. All useful information can be added to parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD ended as no consensus because there were basically just two of us discussing it. As you will be aware, the closer said “The result was no consensus‎. But it sounds as if coverage brought up in the discussion could be considered sufficient.” So that’s hardly scraping survival. WP:NSEASONS does not apply only to “high level” tournaments, as shown in this AfD. It literally is mostly made up of how you judge the notability of a competition that is not high level and thus presumed notable. It’s also important to remember that WP:NOTINHERITED is a rule for Wikipedians, not the real world. For sure, these competitions get media attention because the players are famous, but that’s none of Wikipedia’s business when it comes to deciding what is or isn’t notable. What matters is the coverage, and the coverage clearly passes SIGCOV and GNG in general. One may not like that the real world is like this (and you’ve made your antipathy clear), but that’s not what we’re WP:HERE for. OsFish (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge to the league article at best; I'd not be opposed to a redirect without merging anything either. We could delete as well, but this really isn't a keep for me. I'd appreciate not having this comment replied to to hound me Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual editions have zero lasting impact or coverage so fail GNG; and the league itself simply isn't at the level to merit season-by-season articles, per NSEASONS. All coverage is routine. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I need to emphasize, strongly, that your argument for what should happen with an article on AFD has absolutely nothing to do with your personal opinion on whether or not a subject is or isn't important. Please review sources or look for them to see whether or not notability is established. This is not about your point-of-view on a topic.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biomimicry Institute

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

This is one of the most elaborate cases of WP:REFBOMBing I've seen.

This article on a small nonprofit has an astonishing 46 well-formatted references, which has kept it safe the last 15 years.

I've just finished going through all 46 and discovered:

8 are to the organization's own website(s)
4 are Medium.com blogs
3 are to trade / business media outlets (e.g. Sustainable Brands) that may be RS but (as is customary) we typically treat as WP:ROUTINE and don't contribute to meeting WP:N
4 are fleeting mentions of the organization in local daily newspapers in reference to a contest it sponsored
2 are to company or organizational websites that (e.g. The Sierra Club) that might be RS for limited reference but don't contribute to WP:N
25 are RS, including scholarly journals, that don't mention the organization at all! (they mention the discipline of biomimicry and would be appropriate for that article, but are apparently used here merely to fluff the references section of the article)

My WP:BEFORE fails to redeem this organization and it fails the WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Montana. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some discussion here about a system they've set up [45], which I don't understand. They're covered here, but it's paywalled [46]. Discussed here over a few paragraphs [ https://revistia.com/files/articles/ejnm_v4_i2_21/Yetkin.pdf]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pisasu 2

AfDs for this article:

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

Article not written in Encyclopedia format, and I don't think this mees WP:Notability Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not yet notable enough for a separate encyclopedia article.

The only somewhat notable thing I could find about the film was its release window being delayed due to a legal dispute, such as this Times of India article. But these sources say nothing about what the film itself is about, only the fact that the release was delayed. I don’t think you could write an entire article just saying “This film got delayed” and nothing else.

And this article about the film currently does not mention this dispute at all, even though that’s the film’s only appearance in reliable sources. ApexParagon (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pisasu#Sequel: for now. -Mushy Yank. 10:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vastav Artificial Intelligence

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

The article lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources as required by WP:NOTABILITY.Much of the content is derived from company materials and press releases, contravening WP:PRIMARY SOURCES guidelines.The article reads like promotional material without sufficient neutral analysis, failing to meet WP:NPOV standards. Also a stub with minimal content, it does not meet the quality standards expected for an encyclopedic entry (WP:STUB). Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Flyingphoenixchips (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, mainly due to the fact that nearly all the sources are extremely similar, and dubiously reliable. The final couple of sources are more reliable, but make no mention of Vastav. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reported at SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Btw Santhosh ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails any form of notablity ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Foru220426-1] Lamb, John (April 26, 2022). "Black history in focus at Moorhead's HCSCC". The Forum. Fargo, North Dakota. p. B5. Retrieved March 22, 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]