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 25	March 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Geography of Karafuto

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

The article is a content fork of Sakhalin#Geography and Sakhalin#Climate; additionally, it is simply a list. b3stJ (IPA: /bʌˈθrɛstˌdʒeɪ/, formerly AEagleLionThing) | User talk page | 23:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Japan, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ould Brahim

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

Declined prod. The only added source was world athletics database. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NOLY and WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 19 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) 22:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per the nominator's rationale. Yue🌙 23:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres where his last place finish in a preliminary heat is recorded (his time was almost three-and-a-half seconds behind the winning time). A stand-alone article can't be supported, because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trend of Wikipedia is generally against these subject-specific guidelines, so I put little weight on whether or not NSPORT is met. important part is whether or not topic-neutral guidelines like WP:N are met, which I would say is met in this case via NEXIST. Subject was not merely an Olympian but qualified as the sole representative of his country at several global championships over a 13-year period, making the case for sources existing quite strong. Assuming he had to win a national championship to qualify as was standard practice at the time, that would make him meet WP:NATH as well FWIW. I was able to find an alternate name (Brahim Mohamed Ould) for the subject which I added a redirect for, and found two other major international competitions linked. The article needs some work, but I think the pieces are there for this. --Habst (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"making the case for sources existing quite strong." Where are these sources? LibStar (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mauritania at the 1996 Summer Olympics: As an AtD since no one has offered evidence of WP:SIGCOV qualifying this subject as notable under WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Should SIGCOV be found in the future, the article history will be available to expand as a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arabic is not a language I am familiar with, I'm depedent on machine translation, but this news report from 2008 appears to indicate that he was the President of the Mauritanian Olympic Association at that time. I'm not sure if that is the official IOC body of Mauritania, but if it is, and he was President, that would indicate far higher likelihood of notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appears the offical IOC affiliate is the Mauritanian National Olympic and Sports Committee and he was not President at any point: https://www.cnosm.mr/node/1173. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In French I can find references (eg https://cridem.org/imprimable.php?article=723992) to the "Association des Olympiens Mauritaniens" - which looks to be similar to a players' association (ie sports persons trade union). And here on p.59 of the document (numbered page 683) it shows the registration of the organisation with Mohamed Ould Brahim as President. Goldsztajn (talk) 23:21, 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!} 23:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mauritania at the 1996 Summer Olympics I've searched in French and Arabic under his name and can find no more than what is above. For the Mauritanian Olympians' Association there are some mentions in French language news reports, but none mentioning him. The single Arabic item mentioning the Association and him is the only one I could find. One of the French articles seems to indicate that the current President (a Sydney 2000 Olympian) had sought to revive the organisation ("à remettre sur les rails cette association") when she became President in 2011 - suggesting a lack of notability in its earlier phase when Mohamed Ould Brahim was President. It might be possible that the Mauritanian Olympians' Association is notable, but given there is no article for that, redirection to the 1996 Olympics article appears most suitable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gambanteinn

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

Stub consisting mainly of quotations from primary sources. Everything else is just a summary of Skírnismál. Only cites one secondary source, and beyond Pettit, the only thing that comes close to WP:SIGCOV is [3] a single article in Dutch. Any other mention of gambanteinn on Google Books, Google Scholar, or JSTOR is little more than a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, and usually a small part of a much more general discussion of Skírnismál, Hárbarðsljóð, or North Germanic magic, such as [4]. Fails WP:GNG, and is too short to merge. On balance, sources seem to focus mostly on Skírnismál, so I think a redirect there would make the most sense - or perhaps to Seiðr. Masskito (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC) {{subst:afd2|text=Not a notable person; their only noteworthiness is as executor for Kerouac, which is already covered in that article. There's no proper sourcing--and it's a pretty obvious COI creation, according to some editors. Pinging participants in talk page conversation: User:Wikirhood, User:Toddst1, User:Ashmoo, User:Auranor, and [[User:Samwillan2019]. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)|pg=John H. Shen-Sampas|cat=B}}[reply]

Portuguese Rugby League Association

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

Non-notable governing body with no affiliation to either the IRL or ERL. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Bowling

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them -- but this cites no referencing at all, and is basically written as a directory entry rather than an encyclopedia article: it goes "they are a band who exist, list of members, list of recordings, website link, the end", without documenting a single thing about their career that could possibly be measured against NMUSIC at all. And the article's been tagged for lacking sourcing since 2010 without ever having any sourcing added.
Simple existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a band from having to have any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A start here: Allmusic [5] [6] [7] as well as [8] [9] [10](very short) [11] (user generated?) Geschichte (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On top of the critical coverage identified by Geschichte, one of which states the subject is one of the "founders of West Coast ska revival", there is further critical coverage in another WP:RSMUSIC publication here. I have added several of the identified citations to the article; it is no longer unsourced but still needs expansion. Should be enough here to get over the bar for a keep. ResonantDis_tortion 20:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further coverage from the Fresno Bee and the Arizona Daily Star has been identified and added to the article. The bylined Bee article states the subject is "pretty much the biggest band to come out of Fresno". ResonantDis_tortion 20:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvire Jaspers

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

Appears entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sevens

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Popular culture, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Delhi (1783)

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

As far as I can read in the cited sources (some are unreliable [12]), this is not even a battle; it is about plundering, collecting tribute, and building Gurudwaras, a topic which isn't really notable enough to deserve it's own article. The cited sources do not call it the "Battle of Delhi" even once.If necessary, we can redirect this page to the Sikh attacks on Delhi. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. AlvaKedak (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments of the nominator. Ramencolls (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the sources that I checked do not say Battle but it is evident from sources that fight took place with Mughals trying to prevent Sikhs from capturing Delhi with significant coverage in reliable sources like Gupta and Gandhi that shows the fight took place, "The Mughal response was swift but ineffective. Prince Mirza Shikoh attempted to repel the Sikhs near Qila Mahtabpur but was defeated and forced to retreat. By March 9, widespread panic had engulfed Delhi as the Sikhs breached the city through the Ajmeri Gate, proceeding to devastate the Hauz Qazi area. In a separate engagement, Fazal Ali Khan confronted the invaders; however, the clash resulted in the death of Rao Dhiraj Ram’s son from Pahari Dhiraj." Passes WP:GNG and maybe renaming the title to Capture of Delhi (1783) will be better. RangersRus (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited may mention skirmishes, like the Mughal response or the clash with Fazal Ali Khan, but they do not frame this as a cohesive "battle" or even a singular, significant event. Instead, it is portrayed as part of a broader pattern of Sikh incursions, specifically plunder and collection of tribute, as noted in the nomination. This aligns with WP:NEVENT, which requires events to have lasting significance or widespread recognition, neither of which is evident here beyond routine historical raiding. You suggest renaming it to "Capture of Delhi (1783)," but the sources don’t consistently support a "capture" either; the Sikhs entered, looted, and left, they did not establish control. This makes it a poor fit for a standalone article and more of a footnote to the Sikh attacks on Delhi#Twelfth attack page, where it is already covered adequately. Creating a separate page risks WP:CONTENTFORK, duplicating content without adding value. The quoted passage about Mirza Shikoh and Fazal Ali Khan, while detailed, doesn’t elevate this above other minor clashes in the same sequence, failing WP:SIGCOV for a distinct topic.Deletion, or at minimum a redirect to Sikh attacks on Delhi, is the better option per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not agree. Sources clearly show that they fought, captured, plundered, sat on the throne and while some left after days after agreement, there were others who stayed for months to build temples per agreement between the Mughal King and the Sikhs. I am going to leave it to that. RangersRus (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just rolled back some significant sockpuppet edits, but tbqh looking at the page history I wouldn't be surprised if all the text that remains is also of sockpuppet origin. -- asilvering (talk) 10:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a bit strange. Assessing the sources help me understand that this passes WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:NEVENT if at all there's any debate on whether it passes it or not. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 20:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhombic hectotriadiohedron

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

Fails meeting WP:NOTABILITY. No reliable sources in books or journals mentions about such solid. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:30, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- it's discussed in the first reference and also is built into Glenn Davis's R zonohedron package , so it's actually studied. It took me a while to find it in the cited source because find in page didn't work, but it's definitely in there, and not just mentioned. Central and Adams (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Central and Adams I'm still not convinced this may help keep the article with the given source. Might need books and journals per WP:RS. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This solid is has received coverage by multiple reliable sources that contain information included in this article. I do believe that this page meets notability guidelines.

Cyrobyte (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyrobyte "do believe that this meets..." Can you show reliable sources of books and journals? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first source in the article [13], George W. Hart's website and this journal article: [14]. Cyrobyte (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another journal article. This one was a little hard to find because the author calls it an equilateral dodecazonohedron instead of the terms listed in this article, but it's the same little guy: Twenty Questions on Zonogons, Zonohedra, and Zonoids (PDF warning!). The author is Anton Haanegraf and the journal is Structural Topology, which includes both László Fejes Tóth and Branko_Grünbaum on its editorial board, so it's legit. Central and Adams (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Will add this to the article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As defined in this article, this is merely a zonohedron with 12 generators that happen to be in general position (no three coplanar). There is nothing special here about having 12 generators or having $2{\tbinom {12}{2}}$ faces. Unless one imposes a restriction on symmetry, there are far more than two combinatorial types of zonohedra with this many generators and faces. The first source given as a reference in this article, while not providing significant depth of coverage of this specific choice of parameters, also lists three different combinatorial types with octahedral symmetry, contradicting the bulk of the content of the nominated article which mostly goes on at length about how there are only two. Not independently notable from zonohedron and no content worth merging there. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zonohedron: per David Eppstein. Not just per his !vote here, but also per his 1996 paper on the subject. Owen× ☎ 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna McCarthy

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. References limited to self-published sources. Lacks significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent publications. WP:BEFORE search turned up little beyond self-published sources, book lists and one TED talk recording. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the nomination. Tried my own search and only found references from primary sources (author, publisher) + her Tedx talk. Don't consider reviews from Kirkus reviews to be significant due to potential to pay for review.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bata Mahadeva

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

The article fails notability. I can't find any significant (or even insignificant) coverage of this hindu temple by any reliable or notable sources. The only source of this article gives me a security warning when trying to access the page. Not exactly the best sign. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Hinduism, India, and Odisha. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Megatokyo characters

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

The main characters are already fully covered on the main Megatokyo article, and this spinout list is just overly detailed plot summaries and speculations based entirely on primary sources. Searches are not turning up any coverage in reliable sources that discuss the various minor and supporting characters of the webcomic in any way that would justify this spinout list, or allow it to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Rorshacma (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Webcomics, and Lists. Rorshacma (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aretamma Temple

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

A completely unnotable temple in india. The article is completely unsourced, and some searching on google finds nothing that shows any form of notability. The closest thing to a source is a website about the family that build it (i think), but thats a primary source. Absolutely no coverage by outside sources. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Spring

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

This page lacks any sources - it fails WP:GNG and WP:V. The author of the article themself (or rather, the editor that changed it from a redirect to an article) only cited a Reddit thread in one of his edits. And indeed, there are no reliable sources that can be found. The article wishes to refer to a wave of anti-government protests and civil unrest that swept across Southeastern and Central Europe in late 2024 and 2025, yet apart from the Reddit thread, the sources are either irrelevant (a movie) or are from 2018-2020, thus unrelated to what the subject is supposed to be. Brat Forelli🦊 18:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Turkey. Zeibgeist (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though I understand and appreciate your thoughts, what I meant with Reddit was to show that this term is now broadly being used in Balkan youth, and I am not capable of writing whole details of events here. I know that Turkey’s situation is fairly new though.

I was hoping other authors can participate further, instead of deleting it. Mavreju (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, all Slovakia, Serbia and Turkey protests are from 2025. Aren’t they?

If not, feel free to fix them instead of deleting it. Mavreju (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a different issue. Per WP:RSREDDIT, it is impossible for us to consider Reddit a reliable source for any sort of claim. You do wish to prove that this term is now broadly being used in Balkan youth, but this cannot be done. If this term was widespread, then we would have reliable sources to show its WP:N. But we do not. Brat Forelli🦊 18:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You are a better Wiki author than me, to be honest. So I won’t insist. Thanks!

Let’s see what others think too! Mavreju (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources find these events connected, then recreate the article with valid sources. Polish kurd (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No sources. You could have also draftified this yourself too, no need for AFD on a new page – it is not acceptable to create an article without reliable sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Una Historia de Ovejas y Luciérnagas (película)

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

No coverage at all to support notability. Social media, an article by an Adventist organization with which the crew is affiliated, and a few aggregation sites with a plot summary or cast list. Google ran dry on this quickly. No relevant sources in the article either. For what it's worth, the name of the creator, Elasnoparlante, is the name of the production company, El Asno Parlante. Largoplazo (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. Largoplazo (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've done a quick translation - if anyone is a native speaker please check behind me - I was relying heavily on Google Translate. I got the gist, but every check would help. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For transparency's sake, I've given the user a softer block for a promotional username. They're definitely here to promote the movie, but they didn't add it to any other pages, so giving them a bit of the benefit of the doubt. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This hasn't received any coverage in independent, reliable sources that can give notability. The only coverage has been through primary sources (official website and places associated with the movie), junk hits, routine database listings, and social media posts. No one in the production is notable and there's nothing to suggest that this film warrants coverage anywhere on Wikipedia. Maybe coverage will come in the future, but I'll be honest and say that it's unlikely. Religious films tend to get solidly ignored by the press unless there's a controversy (Saving Christmas), it's a mega-mega blockbuster (The Passion of the Christ), it's attached to a major franchise (Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie), or it just manages to get super lucky. Those exceptions are pretty few and far between. This just isn't notable. I don't mind if anyone wants to take this into their userspace, but otherwise it's a delete for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Woods (basketball)

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

Disputed draftification, undeleted by request. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means it must be discussed here if it doesn't meet our criteria. Fails WP:BIO 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and North Carolina. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCOLLATH as the head coach of a Division I program and meets GNG, see e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being nominated for deletion? The page was created for an active NCAA Division 1 head coach of UNCW. Mr7thgalaxy (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ihsan Isik

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not independent and reliable. Kadı Message 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Turkey, and United States of America. Kadı Message 17:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana, New Jersey, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Albanian film chronicles

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

List with unclear and subjective inclusion criteria. "Film chronicle" isn't a concept with a clear and unambiguous definition -- I can surmise that the films listed here are based on historical events, but that's a characteristic that can encompass both documentaries and fictionalized narrative films. So it's not at all clear where the line would be drawn between "based on historical events" and "actually fitting the precise technical definition of a chronicle", and thus the basis for inclusion here is down to personal interpretation rather than objective reliable source classification.
Lists of "film chronicles" do not otherwise exist for any other country but Albania, and we don't even have an article about the base concept of a "film chronicle" either. And when it comes to the more clear and unambiguous classification of documentary films (which some, but not all, of the films listed here would be), List of Albanian documentary films already exists (although it does need improvement as well), so converting this into a list of documentary films isn't necessary.
Further, this is just a list of entirely unlinked titles -- but the principal function of a list is to help readers find Wikipedia articles, so a list consisting entirely of unlinked names isn't useful. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Albania. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leech (2025 film)

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

Draft moved back to main space without improvisation. Lacks Notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film have 2 notable reviews and make page notable Monhiroe (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Monhiroe (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Can you add some more information to the sources for those reviews, like the date published and (if available) who wrote the review? That would help make them more verifiable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack: I have shown my view below. RangersRus (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reviews, meets the usually-agreed-upon requirements for films. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NFILM as it has received two independent reviews.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reviews are images. But I see problem here. The page says the review from Dinamalar and Malaimalar but the reviews sort of show identical views and do not show if they are from Dinamalar and Malaimalar. Dinamalar says "Producer Anoop Ratna is playing the hero Karthi. Megha, Kannan, Nizam Calicut, Thangamuthu, Suhail, Pakar, Sandy, Abhinav, Gayatri have acted with him. There is nothing wrong with their acting. Through this story, director S.M. shows how bad people are when they are alone. He has said. The film puts forward the idea that women should not always allow themselves to be surrounded by loneliness. Cinematographer Arun T. Sasi is to be commended for showing the beauty of the forest. Music composer Kiran Jose has composed the background score well." Malaimalar says "The film tells us that women should always be aware that they should not allow themselves to feel lonely. Cinematographer Arun Sasi is commendable for bringing out the beauty of the forest. Although the characters do not speak much in the film, the background music is used throughout the film. The weakness of the film is the lack of compelling scenes." One more source from Dinakaran, is hardly a review about the film and it is very amateurly written review that is also sort of identical to above reviews that says "The actors have acted appropriately for the roles of Dr. Karthi, Megha, and Sandy Akbar. Producer Anoop Rathna himself plays the hero Karthi. Along with him, Megha, Kannan, Nizam Calicut, Thangamuthu, Suhail, Bakkar, Sandy, Abhinav, and Gayathri act. There is no flaw in their acting. Cinematographer Arun T. Sasi is commendable. Kiran Jose has composed the background music well. The film is written and directed by S.M." This does not seem to come from professional critics. @Monhiroe: and AShiv1212. RangersRus (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to clarify that I have not added any of my own words in this; I have only translated Tamil into English and included it here. If you want, I can copy the Tamil language as it is and give it to you here. Then you can translate it into English yourself and satisfy your mind. AShiv1212 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Research was after reading and translating and that is what I have shown in the comment with translation above. RangersRus (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RangersRus (talk) You have raised very important aspect with deeper assessment. Agree with above views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspaper journalists are often not big, well-known names. They are either still learning the ropes or write like copy editors. For example, if you look at Kannada film reviews from 2011, you’ll notice that 3-4 newspapers or news channels would simply copy each other’s content.

More importantly, smaller films don’t get as much news coverage as they deserve, and whatever coverage they do receive often results in reviews of this kind AShiv1212 (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to further establish consensus in available sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hara (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. Article created in 2004. Not to be confused with The Hara, which seems to be notable. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Romania. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yam Bahadur Roka

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

Fails Notability. Whatever sources given are all primary. Article has promotional tone. Loaded with unsourced info indicating COI. Immediately Moved back into mainspace without any improvement. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Keeley

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

Created by a WP:SPA in 2009. The creator contributed the bulk (62%) of the edits to the article and has not edited since the article was created. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage with few cites to reliable, independent sources. Reads like a resume and is little more than a promotional accomplishments listing designed to sell or "puff piece." Many unsourced statements. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Theatre, Law, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal Church of the Resurrection (Pleasant Hill, California)

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

Article about a non-notable church that is written in promotional tone. I was unable to find any significant sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This article was written in 2012 by User:Resurrection Pleasant Hill CA. The original author was indefinitely blocked in 2013. As with WhoIsCentreLeft above, I did not find available sources on the net. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - for having the church itself write the article, and the church failing GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think it's G11-worthy but it's not notable. Nowhere close to WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate King

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

I do not see that any of the citations are substantial enough to establish notability, & could not find anything better; search throws up other people with the same name TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced entirely to Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and an interview; the only sources not those are not in fact about this person. The YouTube account has been emptied, and the Twitter posts are marked as "parody". This falls far below the sourcing bar for biographies. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nesquik (disambiguation)

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

Useless disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. The primary topic article already has a hatnote, the other article links back to the primary topic in its first sentence. PROD was contested back in 2013 with this edit (warning: NSFW), so I guess this has to go through AfD. Back then there were two other "Nesquik" articles, but both now redirect to the main article. Toadspike [Talk] 15:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Disambiguations. Toadspike [Talk] 15:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbin Jewish Research Center

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

WP BEFORE did not help; not notable ORG per NORG, no relialbe sources. Cinder painter (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heilongjiang University as WP:ATD. Longhornsg (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PFH Private University of Applied Sciences

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

All references are from primary sources, and the article sounds promotional/advert Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 ICC Champions Trophy group stage

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

Stage articles for a non-world cup tournament with just 15 matches, no need for separate stage articles as all this could be included within the parent article without being WP:TOOLONG. Vestrian24Bio 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England

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

Unverifiable. The two sources given for the relevant information[15][16] both discuss England touring Australia, not the other way around. The article has mostly irrelevant information, and nothing about the supposed tour of the Australian women in England in 2025, and it doesn't seem to be easily verifiable either. Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, England, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is indeed mostly verifiable. Ref no. 1 states that the tour will happen (albeit it in Australia). Refs 5-7 all state how the "GBR or ENG" will be applicable to both men's, women's, and wheelchair. Ref 12 stating game 1 of the tour will be in Las Vegas, plus Refs 12-15 about that game itself. All in all 8/15 refs explicitly state the happening of the women's tour and 7/15 giving wider context.

Only thing uncertain, is the location, as refs for host change (in men's article) don't say anything explicit about the women's tour. With that I could see an argument for draftification until such confirmation, but the article has too many sources for it to be deleted. Mn1548 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there are no sources at all about a women's tour in England, right? So how is that "too many to be deleted"? Fram (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No sources about a women's tour in England, but plenty about the tour itself. If anything, given the specific of what is in the sources, articles should probably be renamed backed to "Lionesses tour of Australia". My point is that deleting an article due to uncertainty about the specific location of a tour is ridiculous given that their are plenty of sources about the tour itself. Especially when the first game has already been played. Mn1548 (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You created "2025 Australia Jillaroos tour of England" without knowing whether they would actually tour England or not? Really? And you consider the deletion "ridiculous" and claim that the article is "mostly verifiable" because, well, it has no information about the actual subject, a tour of England. Good luck with your bolded "keep" vote, I have to say... Fram (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...an article created as a result of a concensus to split from another article which itself passed the draft process by another editor reviewing it. The lack a a concrete source for ONE aspect of the article SHOULD NOT constitute deletion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "ONE" aspect is the actual subject of the article, no biggie... Fram (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So when Euro 2020 was in the grey zone of will it be 2020 or 2021 should the Wikipedia article have been deleted because we weren't sure? No, regardless of where the series will take place 90/95% of the information is still relevant. A page move and editing the article to represent the changes should occur, as it does literally everywhere else on Wikipedia. Mn1548 (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that tournament which had been completely planned, for which dozens of qualification matches had been played, for which probably tickets had been sold, and so on? You really mean to compare such an event to something which has vaguely been announced in October and where nothing more concrete has happened since (and no, a March match in Vegas is not "something concrete" for a tour in England months later if at all)? Fram (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, another editor has since found a source stating the the host change will also affect the women's series. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous WikiProject discussion on splitting the article from 2025 Kangaroo tour of England and France. Mn1548 (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is an unusual situation. I can't think, off-hand, of a case where a tour was announced then one side says "hang on, can we make it the other way round", then the first game gets played with the rest of the tour still unconfirmed. I've edited the article to make it clear this is a putative tour at the moment but with sources showing that it is intended to be happen and in England. If it doesn't happen then we can consider if the events surrounding the whole history make it a notable event or not. Nthep (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "best" source makes it clear that "The tour hasn't been confirmed and planning remains in the preliminary stages", and now, five months later, nothing more is known, but still we need to keep an article? Massive WP:CRYSTAL failure. Fram (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not crystal when the event has already started and Las Vegas was always considered to be part of the series. Nthep (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "event" which hasn't been confirmed, which hasn't been planned, and where the match that did happen wasn't anywhere near England? Uh, yes, that's textbook WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing concrete to suggest that there will be a 2025 tour of England, all we have are vague plans and a match months earlier in a different country (I mean, it's not as if the squad is supposed to travel from Vegas to England...). Fram (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hasn't been planned"? By that logic the men's tour wasn't planned yesterday and when through the entire process overnight. I feel its also worth noting that given the rate of which international rugby league tournaments are being announced at the moment (4 in the past 8 days) this discussion might end up being completely redundant. Also, Ntheps point is a good one. The women's Ashes has already started, its already 1-0 Australia. Its not like this article is only based of the sourcing from 2023 stating that their will be a tour at some point in two years, it's actually begun. Mn1548 (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tour of England has begun? That's news... And "planned" as in, we have dates and places. Here we don't have anything. At all. "this discussion might end up being completely redundant." Obviously, so what? Again, that's a WP:CRYSTAL argument, "but it may be announced in the next few hours, days, weeks!". Fram (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said it's unusual, having 2/3rds of a series still unconfirmed when 1/3rd has already happened. Rename the article 2025 Women's rugby league Ashes then the "but it's not in England" which appears to be your main concern goes away. If the rest happens then great we have a three match series to write about, if it doesn't then we have "what was envisaged as three but ended up as only one and why" to write about. Nthep (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's even hard to find sources that describe the Vegas match as part of The Ashes, actually... Nothing in the Irish Independent[17] or the Daily Mail, BBC[18], Fox, Total Rugby League, ... nothing about this being part of a series or of being part of the Ashes. Fram (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Rhodri Jones, managing director of RL Commercial in September "especially as we have the Ashes Tours against Australia in 2025, which of course begins with a historic fixture in Las Vegas for England Women against the Jillaroos."^[1] Nthep (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So some commercial director tries to sell it as an Ashes tour, and no (or very few certainly) reliable independent sources actually adopt/believe/use this, and treat it like a separate match, a one-off, instead. Good thing we go with what the reliable, independent sources say then. Fram (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IRL the sports governing body said "The Las Vegas fixture will count as part of the historic Ashes series between the two nations"^[2] acknowledging that the same article (from July 2024) goes on to say England in Australia. Per WP:PRIMARY that looks to me like a "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" Nthep (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Las Vegas fixture will count as part of the historic Ashes series between the two nations, which will continue when England travel to Australia at the end of the 2025 season." So who knows whether that still applies? If the series no longer happens, is the lone match then still part of (or the whole of) the Ashes, or not? All one can say is that it was intended in July 2024 to be part of the Ashes series. Fram (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until we have confirmation of this all actually going forward. The text shouldn't be lost now, but we shouldn't be detailing what for now is merely a proposed tour in mainspace. Nathannah • 📮 19:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Communities Council

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

Non-notable, weak articke Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a company but a statutory Council of the Portuguese Government with public elections for the Portuguese diaspora. More info here: https://portaldascomunidades.mne.gov.pt/pt/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas

Information for Portugal's electoral commission as well: https://www.cne.pt/content/conselho-das-comunidades-portuguesas Diogo Costa (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ugochukwu Chime

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

lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For those who care, this is just a nonsensical effort to advertise one CEO, lacks a byline and fails WP:IRS. Overall, the subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of sixty CEO's in Nigeria is a flimsy claim to notability, when they're already know for using puffy language. I can't find anything further about this individual, I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more WP:NOTLINKEDIN cruft for another non-notable business leader who just takes credit for things everyone else in their company does. Nathannah • 📮 17:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

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

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[19] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[20] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [21], this is an opinion piece [22], [23], [24]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles critizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [25] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Prakash Upadhyay

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet identified in the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lazy-restless/Archive. The creation by a blocked user tied to the "Lazy-restless" investigation suggests potential WP:POV pushing. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, as no sources provide sufficient coverage. NXcrypto Message 12:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Major portion of this article sources copied by sock from deleted articles, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avtar aur Muhammad sahib (book). It was also spammed by Lazy-restless IPs and socks, e.g., Hindi Wiki (history) using IP 202.134.10.142, IP 202.134.10.136, IP 202.134.10.131, IP 202.134.11.228, and Assad Jibran (blocked as a Lazy-restless sock). Created by Lazy-restless on Malayalam Wiki (history), Turkish Wiki (history), Fiji Hindi Wiki (history), Malay Wiki (history), Urdu Wiki (history), Arabic Wiki (history), Punjabi Wiki (history with IP 103.66.169.1), Sanskrit Wiki (history with IP 202.134.11.228 and IP 103.230.104.41), and Kashmiri Wiki (history with IP 103.230.106.29). All tied to the banned user IP range, and the majority of these IPs are blocked. NXcrypto Message 13:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no links in Jstor or Gscholar about this individual, the rest of the sourcing doesn't seem appropriate for a scholar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still not notable. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Recruitment

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

Company is not notable - Google search reveals no reliable news and few other sources. Existing references over-reliant on company-derived PR material (plus non-reliable LinkedIn and company website). Paul W (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails GNG. Delete as per nomination. Given sources are not significant neither secondary. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic structuring

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

This article has been tagged since 2010 as relying excessively on primary sources. Looking over it now, the only source cited in the article is Jo Freeman's essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness", which it quotes so heavily from that this article is effectively a copyright violation (see Earwig results).

Looking for the term "democratic structuring" as defined by Freeman on Google Scholar, none of the sources appear to give the concept any analysis that is independent of wider commentary on the essay.[26] It appears there could be basis for an article on democratic structuring outside of its definition by Freeman, but this would be an entirely different article.[27]

Due to the extreme problems with this article, I'm nominating it for deletion. "Democratic structuring" could be redirected to the article on The Tyranny of Structurelessness, but in my opinion, this should only be done after this version is deleted due to copyvio. Grnrchst (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Social science. Grnrchst (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marsha Moses

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

Subject has requested the page be deleted. Jesswade88 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally re-listed as the original nom didn't make it to the AfD log. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and United States of America. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jesswade88, How do you know that she wants her article removed? Is there anything personal that she wants removed or redacted? Bearian (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The three followships and the hospital positions show notability, she has a large list in Gscholar, but I can't pull up her h-index. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Kurishima

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

Article was previously deleted by prod so nominating. Played 22 times professionally [28] before dropping down to non league. Article has primary sources. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Japanese Wikipedia relies too much on press release news. No evidence of SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much found which shows that the book has much notability outwith of Rudolf Friedrich Kurz and therefore seems to be an unnecessary fork JMWt (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Mississippi, and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure about the journal itself, but its translations have been reviewed abundantly, which to me demonstrates its notability. The version edited by J. N. B. Hewitt, Myrtis Jarrell has been reviewed in Ethnohistory (here), and the The Mississippi Valley Historical Review (here). There also seems to be a review in Anthropos (here), but the page is blank for some reason, even though highlighting it shows there is text. A different version, edited by Carla Kelly, and titled ON THE UPPER MISSOURI: The Journal of Rudolph Friederich Kurz, 1851-1852 has been reviewed in Journal of the West (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobuhiro Uetani

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

Tried to propose, previously denied. Made 12 appearances [29] in Singapore before dropping down into non league. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Singapore. RossEvans19 (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hope based on the (lack of) achivements and the lack of sources in Japanese Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geschichte. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Pujan Diwas

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

As per Hindu tradition, no recognized observance is known as Tulsi Pujan Diwas. This so-called event is a fabricated concept introduced and propagated by a convicted individual to influence public perception and shape a narrative to serve personal or ideological interests. True Hindu customs and rituals have evolved over centuries through deeply rooted spiritual and cultural practices, and any attempt to artificially engineer or impose new observances without a historical or scriptural basis raises concerns. Such efforts to modify religious beliefs and practices through deliberate social engineering not only lack authenticity but also pose a risk of distorting traditional faith and misleading followers. Therefore, the legitimacy and intent behind such artificially created events remain highly questionable. Charlie (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and India. Charlie (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found one academic reference but it's from a small local journal whose provenance I have no information about. [30] It does show up as a reference in a few books but only ever in the context of Asaram Bapu there is some news coverage of the festival but all of it comes from local press which means it's not particularly widespread coverage. I could be persuaded to keep if there are sources I'm missing but this is a marginal case. Simonm223 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[31] doesn't look local. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of what you (OP) said is reason to delete a WP-article. Failing WP:N is the basic reason to delete. If there are WP:RS that notes criticism of this festival, perhaps that can be added too. Per Tulsi Pujan Diwas 2024: Date, rituals, and significance (India Today), other views than yours exist. That said, there may be reason to delete, or merge to Tulasi in Hinduism or another article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to Tulasi in Hinduism seems an appropriate outcome here. That concedes there's something notable here but possibly not enough to sustain an article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Hinduism. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick to sources in English, it's harder for me to guess WP:RS-ness of others. I looked at these:
- India-West 2017 "Tulsi Pujan Diwas Celebrated by Hundreds in Bay Area". It's in the WP-library, short but on-topic.
- The Economic Times 2022 [32]
- The Hans India 2023 [33]
- India Today 2024 [34]
- The Times of India 2024 [35]
- I also found an interesting comment in The Hindu I put in the article[36].
- Per these, I'm at weak keep. It would be nice to have something more academic, but it's a relatively new thing and I'm told the originator is otherwise engaged. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I too would like to see more academic sources, but it looks like there are somewhat reliable sources on the topic as described above. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 18:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Asaram Bapu, where an appropriate sentence can be added. We have enough sources to attest that Asaram Bapu promulgated this festival in 2014 (eg, [37]) but little independent reliable sourcing of anything else.

Despite superficial appearances of the sources listed above, there is no evidence of the "festival" being celebrated widely or its notability independent of Asaram Bapu. Most/all of news articles cited are mere re-publications of press releases and third-party content as should be obvious from reading the puff-pieces or noting the disclaimer at the bottom of the Economic Times article. See also WP:NEWSORGINDIA on how this is a common, often unmarked, practice in Indian media and does not contribute to the subject's notability.

And this article in a newly formed journal with a single issue is neither a reliable source, nor is it talking about the subject of the wikipedia article; the "Tulsi Pujan Diwas" it is referring to falls on "eleventh day of the bright fortnight of Kartik month (also known as Dev Uthani Ekadashi)", ie roughly mid-November as opposed to the Christmas-alternative established by Asaram Bapu. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by GGS seem to indicate that there is sufficient notability for this to be kept, if barely, and the nomination feels much more like a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS rather than based in Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Cobo Displas

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

I can find no in-depth coverage of this academic, and cannot see how they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Family Coalition Party of British Columbia

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial political party whose electoral results never exceeded half a percent of the popular vote. There is therefore no obvious claim of notability. The one reference provided, a book written by UBC professor Chris MacKenzie, does describe the background and founders of the party in-depth. However, I could not find multiple examples of in-depth coverage by reliable sources, and I do not think the coverage from MacKenzie's work alone is enough to establish long lasting notability. Yue🌙 08:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 08:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rise East Entertainment

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

Sources are related to the respective films produced by the subject and do not provide any coverage of the production house itself. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject. Subject does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Business, India, and Tamil Nadu. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am unable to locate any English language significant coverage of the topic, however there remains a strong possibility that sigcov may exist in a language other than English. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These types of film production companies in India never have any independent, significant coverage about them in their local language either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to come off as credible "never" isn't the word to use as it immediately makes you seem unserious, you're either being hyperbolic or you're just wrong. Consider using "rarely" instead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally used never because, in practice, these production companies in India do not receive independent, significant coverage in their local language. By 'these', I mean production companies that pop up without any significant backing, often founded by newcomers with little to no experience in the field, making it difficult for them to sustain themselves. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it never or is it in practice they don't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, it hasn't happened till now, so we can discuss the nuances of the wording once someone sets a precedent. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Navrajvir Singh

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

Lacks Notability. Given Sources are primary. No significant coverage in Independent Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Entertainment, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO in any way. No non-primary coverage. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jauwad Hassan

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

The bio fails WP GNG, NPOL, AUTHOR (journalist). Promotional and lacking RS Cinder painter (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Journalism, and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO . The given sources fail to justify notability in any way. No non-primary coverage.Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K-dron

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

Fails to meet WP:CRITERIA per lack of supported sources in Google Books and Scholars; only one or two. Some possible plagiarism detected in [38], which translates from Polish to English. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:21, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Mathematically this is not of significance but the question is whether we can find enough coverage of this as a design element to make up for that. Skipping all Kapusta-authored sources as non-independent, the Górska source is independent but does not provide in-depth coverage, and neither does Moskal, "Virtual and Real: K-dron and light", in SIGGRAPH 2004, despite its title. Other sources I looked at, that mention K-drons but without in-depth coverage of the shape itself, are Żarinow's "Recepcja scenografii w Polsce wczoraj i dziś", Możdżyński's "Naukowe Fascynacje Sztuki. Przegląd Arbitralny", Orzechowski's "Teaching Drawing, Painting and Sculpture at the Faculty of Architecture of the Warsaw University of Technology, classics and modernity", Smith's "From here to infinity" [39], and Kraus's All the Art That's Fit to Print [40]. [41] and [42] have some depth but I am skeptical of their independence and reliability. The Kapproff book is independent, reliably published, and with in-depth coverage, but it is only one source; we need multiple such sources. [43] is paywalled so I could not check its depth. So for now to me this is borderline, but with one more source as good as the Kapproff book I could be pushed to a weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lubański source might not be that elusive additional source for David Eppstein. It talks about things already written at https://msl.org.pl/k-dron-janusz-kapusta such as the co-authored paper with Stanisław Kwapień; and adds a couple of tidbits like a puzzle piece, a 3D map of the planet, and the use as the logo in a 2018 fair. It also quotes the inventor. Uncle G (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vernacular Music Research

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

Unfortunately, I can't find enough sources for this to pass GNG (though I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong). There's an hour-long presentation and... just nothing else. Even the obituary of founder Thornton Hagert has just a few sentences about it. Hagert himself doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC for his musicology work or WP:MUSICBIO as a musician. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Museums and libraries, and Pennsylvania. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't found anything on the archive. For Thornton Hagert, though, there is a 3 column obituary in the Philadelphia Daily News [44]; he was asked by the Smithsonian to recreate a 1924 concert, and produced 10 page liner notes for the resulting album, which was nominated for two Grammys in 1982 (Best Historical Album and Best Liner notes) [45] (album review in the Institute for Studies in American Music Newsletter. here: [46]); review of another album for which he wrote 6 pages of liner notes in The San Francisco Examiner [47] and of another one here [48]; and there are other reviews of his writings coming up in a Google Scholar search. It seems to me that he would probably meet WP:AUTHOR (etc). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on RebeccaGreen's work, would it be sensible to move the current article to Thornton Hagert ("Thornton Hagert was a musicologist and jazz historian who founded the Vernacular Music Archive, an archive...")? Initially, the result would be a bit of a coatrack article, but it would retain what's of use from Vernacular music research, and it would form a stub with the potential to grow into something useful on the man himself. Elemimele (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Demsas

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage in independent secondary sources. Self-auhtored articles are not enough to prove her notability. Gheus (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Multiple references show significant, not trivial, coverage in independent secondary sources, discussing her early life (references 1-5), professional career and her views and contributions to the discussion of the housing crisis. An important notability factor (WP:AUTHOR) relies on the following: The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention. Her book has received has significant critical attention, including book reviews in major sites including Vox and Bloomberg News (ref 9), which stated that Demsas "has distinguished herself within the supply-side camp." Her overall work has led to multiple high profile interviews, including on Bloomberg (ref. 9), NPR (ref. 11) and Ezra Klein's NYTimes interview (ref. 12), indicating her work has had significant attention. Per WP:NAUTHOR, references 8 & 9 show she is known for originating a significant new concept, further enhancing her notability. Included in the article were her opinions on the housing crisis; there is no Wikipedia injunction against discussing a subject's views. There is no Wikipedia injunction against using the subject's self-authored published works in reputable publications to verify the information presented. The references discussed above were used to verify Demsas' views, not to establish notability. And, only 4/23 references even fall within that purview. In brief: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (Wikipedia:Notability (people)). The article meets all criteria.

I note that the first reviewer (Ipigott]) did not see a problem with this article, and later removed a tag stating that this article may not achieve notability, claiming that "del tag - no longer applicable." Mwinog2777 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was because additional pertinent work had been carried out on the article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that she meets WP:AUTHOR. A search of Newspapers.com shows a lot of columnists in other newspapers basing columns on articles by Demsas in The Atlantic and critiquing what she has written. So far I've found examples in The Indianapolis Star, The Herald-Palladium, Sun Journal (Lewiston, Maine), and The San Francisco Examiner, by 5 different columnists. I'll try to add them to the article. (Before searching, I had thought this might be a case of TOOSOON, as she joined The Atlantic only 3 years ago, in 2022. But it's clear that she very quickly had a big impact.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think added refs are examples of WP:SIGCOV. Quotes of her work in independent secondary sources are helpful to expand the article (and I'm thankful to you for doing this research), but there must be some coverage that is directly about her (preferably about her early life, education, career) to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with you; check references 1, 3-5 and 7, particularly such reporting in reference 1.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the kind of coverage required to meet WP:NJOURNALIST. Some participants above are citing discussion of her work ([49], [50]) as WP:SIGCOV of her, which it's not (that's more of an WP:NACADEMIC criterion). These are mentions, not independent reviews of her body of work required to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Meanwhile, the Bits and Deets article should be deleted as an unreliable blog that scrapes personal info and aggregates it as SEO bait. The rest of the sources appear to be her own work or WP:INTERVIEWs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Interviews: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." The multiple interviews listed were done by highly reputable outlets, including the New York Times and NPR. The interviews were presented as investigative journalism with the interview material often interspersed with the interviewer's own analysis and thoughts. Please review the interviews. She meets criteria for WP:NAUTHOR as there are multiple reviews of her book, her body of work, as it encompasses her previous columns and essays.Mwinog2777 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT interview is a podcast interview with Ezra Klein - a classic Q&A primary source interview with no editorial interpolation and no "investigative journalism". The so-called "NPR" interview is actually a PBS interview (these are not the same outlet) and again, it is a Q&A interview with Demsas. These are primary sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, mixed up PBS and NPR, my bad. But, disagree, both interviews had in-depth comments by interviewers, particularly the Ezra Klein, even with only a cursory glance.~~~ Mwinog2777 (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Took out original ref. 2 and added another re high school attended. Mwinog2777 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendent Leadership

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

Not sure it's meeting GNG. Heavliy supported by blogs, linkedins posts, strange articles like: 9 things to know.... etc. Cinder painter (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Business, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koko Pee

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

Failing to meet GNG and Anybio; lack of reliable sources; original research and unsourced promotional text Cinder painter (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has failed to meet any criteria under WP:SINGER. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Oh dear, I had to laugh when I did a cursory search. This subject is still up-and-coming and fails WP:NMUSICIAN, does not come close to WP:COMPOSER or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly Fail GNG. Hardly anything significant to be discussed here. Nothing more to be added. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meenal Choubey

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

Mayors are not inherently notable under WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chhattisgarh. GrabUp - Talk 07:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the guideline also mentions Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage - there are many news about her from google search.
Uncle Bash007 (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Hartman Institute

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

Notability. This article is cruft and appears written and edited by a participant. I recommend deletion, it does not appear notable. Ogress 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ogress 15:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't verify the Jerusalem Post articles. Bearian (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by NORG, with the initiative merged into it. gidonb (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This is an important international educational institution based in Jerusalem, and it certainly deserves to have an article. I’ve tried to provide a few additional sources to help establish its notability, and perhaps it still needs some edits to make it more encyclopaedic. However, I see no reason for it to be deleted entirely. IshtoriHaparchi (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep -. It has been around for almost 50 years and is one of the leading institutes of its kind. The links in the articles prove this without a doubt. Atbannett (talk) 08:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep -. We editors should seek to improve article, rather then delete them if we find imperfections. --CarlSerafino (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of these are not credible policy-based arguments. However, I've since added WP:RS that establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's less than a consensus here for keep on the basis of policy or guideline interventions. Further discussion on claimed reliable sourcing now in the article (or present elsewhere) would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources have been identified. Here is another one, from the Detroit Jewish News, Shalom Hartman Institute Hosts Learners and Leaders from North America in Jerusalem although it is not fully independent. Here is strong criticism of one of the institute's major programs by a Muslim who was once a fellow there The Failures of an American Muslim and Jewish Dialogue: A former member of a prominent program in which both sides shared perspectives reflects on its shortcomings. Here's coverage in Jewish Chicago, Shalom Hartman Institute comes to Chicago: Jason Rosensweig to become first Chicago director. in In the spirit of full disclosure, I briefly visited this institute in Jerusalem in 2005. Cullen328 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Institute meets WP:GNG and WP:NORG, with coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources (WP:RS). Its U.S.-based iEngage program, operating on North American campuses, received $1M in philanthropic support (ToI); its donor relationships, including $25M+ from the CLAWS Foundation, have been reported (Haaretz). The Institute’s president was interviewed on The Ezra Klein Show (NYT). While most coverage is brief, it spans education, philanthropy, and public discourse. JSTOR returns 300+ results referencing the Institute (not individually reviewed by me). Per WP:BIAS, sourcing standards should consider regional context for non-English speaking organizations.

Marss

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

The article have used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. Did WP:BEFORE but found only this trivia coverage from Kotaku [51]; thus zero WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1st ESPN source was good, the 2nd is usable but those are not enough. Other sources might be also reliable, but it just have trivia coverages (not sigcov, and wouldn't notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsora

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE shows no reliable sources. Most of the sources that have been used here are mostly unreliable, while other reliable was just he won 2019 but that's it. I'm suspecting Nairo (gamer) has the same fate like this article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they might be reliable like ESPN, but it has only trivia coverage; thus not a sigcov (wouldn't help its notability). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckney Hill

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

Cuckney Hill does not meet WP:NGEO guidelines. I can find no significant discussion of it, only mentions of it as a place to drive through and a mention of greenery planted to attract game. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a place to drive along. According to both current maps and old maps like https://maps.nls.uk/view/101602494 (1884) https://maps.nls.uk/view/115390009 (1918) and https://maps.nls.uk/view/189228330 (1955) this is the name of a section of the A60 road, not of a hill. The name is written along the road rather than horizontally. This article seems to be a lie. I couldn't find anything about Metz Lodge or the tree plantations collectively. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a lie, I think the road goes over the top of Cuckney Hill and was named that after the fact - this suggests the A60 bisects it. I found cites in books including the 1868 Gazetteer of Great Britain, and I'm not sure what to make of this but it cites a map from the 1830s. If the various mentions aren't enough to get to a full article, it should be merged or redirected into Cuckney. SportingFlyer T·C 11:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States

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

This article fails to adhere to Wikipedia’s core Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy and reads more like an advocacy piece than an encyclopedia article. It presents a highly one-sided narrative, focusing exclusively on negative consequences of restrictive abortion laws without offering counterbalancing perspectives—such as legal, ethical, or public health arguments made by supporters of these laws. For example, the article contains emotionally charged and anecdotal accounts (e.g., detailing the deaths of Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain) in a manner more consistent with journalistic storytelling than encyclopedic writing. It uses loaded phrases like “doctors refused to help”, “hide or ignore the problem”, and “significant suffering for the child”—language that conveys bias rather than neutrality.

Additionally, there is no discussion of constitutional, legal, or moral arguments in favor of abortion restrictions, nor any mention of differing interpretations of maternal or prenatal rights. The article also heavily emphasizes phrases like “birthing people” and “pregnant people," unlike most Wikipedia articles of a similar nature, without acknowledging that this terminology is itself a subject of sociopolitical debate—another example of ideological slant without proper context.

Further, the content of this article could easily be incorporated into one of the many existing articles, such as "Abortion in the United States" or relevant articles relating to abortion laws.. if it can be completely rewritten first. DocZach (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD isn't cleanup, and the topic is extensively sourced. Cortador (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, extensively sourced article with many WP:RS. Your nomination is long on words but short on policy, and most of it really is just your opinion, which does not convince me of WP:NPOV violation. Even then, NPOV is no reason for deletion outside of WP:POVFORKS articles, which this is not. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛•💬•📋 10:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Law, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

To your points:

1) I don't view this as a one-sided narrative. The name of the article is "Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States," and the things contained in the article are impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States. (It's just exactly what it says it is.)

You mention adding "counterbalancing perspectives" of supporters of these laws, but I don't think *perspectives* are in the article - even of those opposed to the laws. It's not really about what the supporters of these laws *believe,* it's what are the *impacts* of the laws. If there are any positive impacts of the laws, that have reliable sources, that aren't in the article, then anyone is welcome to add them.

2) Listing some examples of notable deaths that experts say were caused by these laws is appropriate on a page about the impacts of these laws. (Whether it charges some people's emotions or not is immaterial).

3) To the few phrases you pulled out that you don't think are neutral a) I made small edits to clarify spots about doctors refusing to help, expanding slightly one specifically what that meant so it was more based directly in specific facts b) I got rid of the sentence that included "hide or ignore the problem." And "significant suffering for the child" is pulled directly from the source and doesn't seem like a biased phrase to me (especially since it came from an expert; I don't think we usually have to use attribution and quote marks for a usage of a 5-word phrase, but if you think the quote is long enough and you want to put quote marks on it and cite the expert, that would probably be another acceptable way to do it). If you have small NPOV issues, the article can be edited to use some different language. That doesn't justify deleting the whole article

4) The article doesn't "emphasize" phrases like "birthing people," it merely uses them. Gender neutral language when it comes to pregnant people is listed in the AP Stylebook, and I haven't found any wikipedia guidelines saying that Wikipedia is in opposition to the AP Stylebook

5) The article does not need to be "completely rewritten." It has several reliable sources and gets across a lot of relevant information. It doesn't make any sense to add it to "Abortion in the United States" as I put the "Abortion in the United States" article into a word counter and it said it was over 17,000 words. WP:SIZERULE says if an article is over 15,000 words, it "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." So, it wouldn't make sense to bloat an article that is already too large (and maybe needs an article offshoot) any further InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not make more sense to have "impacts of restrictive abortion laws" under the specific article about that law? Anti-abortion laws vary significantly in their extent, application, and scope. Some anti-abortion laws are poorly written and don't clearly outline exceptions, others do clearly outline exceptions. We already have articles for specific laws against abortion (and even articles about abortion in each and every state), so would it not make more sense to include the aftermath of such laws in their designated articles instead of attempting to generalize the laws of 50 states in one article?

Much of the content in this article is already addressed in the Impact section of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization article. I don't see why a completely new article is needed when this topic is already addressed in many other articles. It would be as if I decided to make an "Impact of restrictive drug laws in the United States" article and attempted to synthesize and form a conclusion on the complicated drug laws of all 50 states. It doesn't seem encyclopedic or sensical at all. DocZach (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious keep. I think can be perfectly legal and moral and still have impact worth speaking of. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico's Next Top Model season 3

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

Redirect, unnecessary. Valorrr (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Valorrr (talk) 05:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator actually blanked and redirected this article, but *then* sent it to AfD. Since redirects cannot be nominated at AfD, I have restored the article for now. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conway triangle notation

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

MathWorld is notorious for neologisms, and this is one. MathWorld in turn sources this notation only to an unpublished book manuscript that uses this notation only in the formulation of a single formula. My prod saying as much was reverted by User:Mast303 with no improvement and a WP:VAGUEWAVE at notability, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's surprising - you can find LOTS of people mentioning this convention, but very little discussion of the convention itself. For the amount of hits you get back, I'm definitely surprised to discover that it doesn't really seem to have enough support to justify inclusion at the moment. PianoDan (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete the article, but I will mention that I saw this notation a long time ago. I don't think it's a term coined by MathWorld, but admittedly I have no sources to back this up. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 00:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment. I created this article in 2008 because I noted that a number of published papers in projective geometry that I was reading at the time used the Conway notation as a short hand and there did not exist any scholarly article detailing the notation or how best to use it. The only reference at the time was the entry in MathWorld and it referred to Yiu, P. "Notation." §3.4.1 in Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle. pp. 33-34, Version 2.0402, April 2002.
Deleting the article because an editor believes that "Conway triangle notation" is a neologism created by MathWord seems excessive and probably incorrect. I do not know who coined the phrase "Conway triangle notation" but details of the notation were published by Paul Yiu in his very popular and well cited Book/Journal, "Introduction to the Geometry of the Triangle" first published in 2001.
Today, many papers in geometry use the notation here is a recent example:-
Trigonometric Polynomial Points in the Plane of a Triangle by Clark Kimberling 1, and Peter J. C. Moses - see section 7 at https://www.mdpi.com/3042-402X/1/1/5.
I note that there are 2 other language versions of the article. The Dutch version also has no references. Will this be deleted by the same editor or will it remain? I believe there needs to be consistency.
Finally, I will insert 2 references into the article - The Paul Yiu reference mentioned above and a reference to the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers and ETC Part 1 "Introduced on November 1, 2011: Combos" Note 6. - Frank M. Jackson (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 12:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. Though the term "Conway triangle notation" may or may not have been created at MathWorld, the use of the notation goes back to the nineteenth century. The following reference has been supplied by Francisco Javier.
"Here it is a previous use of the nowadays known as Conway notation by a Spanish mathematician in the XIX century:
Juan Jacobo Durán Loriga,
"Nota sobre el triángulo", en El Progreso Matemático, tomo IV (1894), pages 313-316."
https://hemerotecadigital.bne.es/hd/es/viewer?id=60bef4e2-9410-4e51-8dca-5044fc99ba4a
Francisco Javier. Frank M. Jackson (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Frank M. Jackson. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 07:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Frank M. Jackson that says that this is Conway's triangle notation and cites Yiu? Or the Frank M. Jackson that says that it isn't and cites a paper showing that Yiu was wrong? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My experience is similar to PianoDan's. Excluding the CRC Encyclopaedia, for obvious reasons, I went looking for other sources. Everyone seems to cite either Wikipedia or MathWorld. The 19th century mathematician mentioned above cannot possibly have documented a "Conway" notation 43 years before Conway was born. And indeed xe didn't. There is a nonce $p_{a},p_{b},p_{c}$ notation there, but it isn't attributed to anyone and just called a potencia. MathWorld's article on the notation by Peter Moses traces it back to Yiu, but Yiu simply does not give any citation to Conway for this, unlike for other things. MathWorld's article on the Johnson Triangle attributes this to personal communications from Peter Moses and one … Frank M. Jackson. This is starting to seem very circular. And it's even odder that we are in the situation of a Frank M. Jackson now arguing to keep this article on the basis it is not Conway's triangle notation but is someone else's from the 19th century, outright invalidating the Yiu source that is being proffered at the same time. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of well-known formulae about the triangle dressed up with a notation for which the name given in the article does not have any reliable reference. If it is used in actual textbooks it could possibly be merged into the triangle article but according to the comments above the name for the notation certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. jraimbau (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, there is no agreement or consensus on an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poove Pen Poove

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). No reliable reviews [52], [53], and [54]. Sources in Release section are not specific to this film, but talk about both actors' post debut films' performance.

Source 1 doesn't help much, such sources got Singara Chennai deleted [55]. DareshMohan (talk) 03:30, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2001#July_–_September. Opposed to deletion (notable cast and musicians). -Mushy Yank. 05:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Winery

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

This is a procedural nomination. Apparently I created this page as a redirect in 2015, then decided to "let's try an article", which suggests I was helping or doing cleanup for somebody (it's not the sort of article I would have spontaneously written). Anyway, it was recently PRODded, but I think a discussion on it is better. So discuss. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do Draft:City Winery and Special:Permalink/666766371#Response to you jog the memory? Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I was doing NPP / AfC patrol, that figures. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good nomination, I agree wrt the rationale that PROD was unnecessary. There appears to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary, independent third-party sources, over a period of time, to indicate both GNG and SIGCOV have been met. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found these sources: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. None of them is particularly great in terms of establishing more than a passing mention, but I think there's just enough independent sourcing from various places to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Not a slam-dunk, but, I think, enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, I can very much sympathize with editors who have had to deal with promotional editing, and I can agree that such disruption should not be rewarded. On the other hand, such edits, once they have been corrected, do not determine the notability of a subject. As I've said, the sourcing to establish notability here is not a slam-dunk, and I can accept that that's open to discussion, but if the page topic is notable, past bad conduct is not a policy-based reason to delete it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much @Tryptofish for taking the time to research for notability citations. It is deeply appreciated. This was quality research. I agree with you that abuse is not enough if a page is salvageable. That is an excellent point you make. The sourcing that you took the time to find, I agree, is not exactly a "slam-dunk." As you kindly opened them to discussion, I evaluated each one and have the following concerns:

The sources provided to support keeping the City Winery article do not appear to me to meet Wikipedia's standards for establishing independent and substantial notability, as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Each cited reference is either incidental, promotional, or superficial, failing to offer the depth and independent analysis required by Wikipedia's policies.

The reference from Creating the Hudson River Park by Tom Fox is merely a mention of a business transaction. It indicates only that City Winery signed a lease at Pier 57 along with other businesses during a redevelopment project. Per WP:ROUTINE, such routine coverage does not establish notability beyond a basic directory listing or business note (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), lacking meaningful cultural or independent significance.

Similarly, Weekends in Chicago from the Chicago Tribune Staff functions purely as paid promotional tourism content. According to WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVERTISING, promotional material highlighting City Winery as one of many "Things to Do" in Chicago, which is an advertisement or paid placement, does not constitute substantial coverage that would establish independent notability.

Likewise, The New Nashville Chef's Table by Stephanie Stewart operates as a promotional cookbook showcasing current Nashville businesses and venues, including City Winery, that happened to be operational and participate at the time of publication. Such material is explicitly promotional, encouraging dining and entertainment patronage, without genuine, independent cultural analysis or historical significance. Accepting this as evidence of notability would set a problematic precedent contradicting WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTADVERTISING, potentially qualifying nearly every business featured in promotional publications as notable.

Finally, Anthony DeCurtis's Lou Reed: A Life only briefly references City Winery in connection with Michael Dorf, who had minor professional ties with Lou Reed. WP:INHERIT explicitly states that notability is not inherited through association. The mention in DeCurtis's biography is peripheral and does not establish independent notability for City Winery. Accepting such a mention as proof of notability would imply that every venue Lou Reed performed at throughout his decades-long career is inherently notable. Given that Lou Reed performed extensively from around 1955 onwards and City Winery only opened for business in 2008, such reasoning would lead to untenable outcomes where countless venues would unjustifiably qualify for standalone Wikipedia articles based solely on association with the musician. Therefore, none of these sources provide the substantial, independent secondary-source coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG to justify retaining the City Winery article on Wikipedia. Qinifer (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I went looking for sources, I made a deliberate effort to avoid the pitfalls that you assert these four sources have. The first one I cited, by M.B. Bailey, which I don't think you commented on, spends a significant amount of text discussing how "City Winery in New York City illustrates how race may overlap with age and venue in Americana." As a secondary source, she also cites how primary opinions by other authors, specifically about City Winery, support this view. This becomes even more significant when taken alongside the source about Lou Reed, because it provides a context in which the page subject is seen by multiple sources as a culturally significant venue for musical performances. As portrayed by the source material, this isn't just any venue where Reed performed. That source also treats Dorf as someone who knew Reed well and was qualified to comment on Reed as a person, and who commented in the context of performance at that venue, in terms of the specific characteristics of that venue. As for the source about real estate by Fox, I can accept your point that it is the weakest of the sources that I chose to cite. But it isn't simply what you call it, "a mention of a business transaction". Rather, the source discusses that transaction in the context of a wider issue about neighborhood development, providing secondary commentary about how it plays a cultural role in the neighborhood. Either I am missing something, or you are mischaracterizing the two other sources, about reviewing the place as a restaurant. I see no evidence that these sources were paid to write about the Winery, or that they were simply repeating press release material. (I discarded other sources I came across, that did seem to me to fail on these points.) The Tribune staff are providing an independent restaurant review, which NORG explicitly distinguishes from paid placement about restaurants, and the Stewart source is a book about a movement or style in cooking, that provides a detailed and multi-page examination of specific dishes from the menu. These are independent sources about the restaurant, and they are far from in-passing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to assess sources carefully. I appreciate the effort to ensure that a fair notability evaluation is made. However, I remain unconvinced that these sources meet the threshold for substantial, independent coverage required by WP:GNG as follows:

But first, my apologies for neglecting the Bailey source. I meant no disrespect. That was an oversight, and I appreciate you pointing it out so that I could properly assess it. I had it open in my browser, read it, and must have mistakenly closed it and overlooked it when actually writing my response (too many tiny tabs open at once). Your work and the article deserve serious consideration.

Upon review, the Bailey source discusses City Winery within the context of a broader analysis of Americana music and its relationship to race and age. While Bailey provides an interesting higher-level discussion, City Winery appears to be one of many venues used as an interchangeable example rather than being the focus of a sustained, in-depth examination of that particular business. Mentions within broader cultural studies do not automatically equate to independent notability for the venue itself, particularly if the analysis is primarily about a musical trend involving numerous equally interchangeable venues rather than City Winery’s unique role within it. If this were a sociological study focused specifically on how City Winery reshaped cultural dynamics, it might be different, but as it stands, this source does not establish lasting significance for City Winery itself.

To clarify by way of example, the Apollo Theater in Harlem is widely recognized as a culturally and historically significant venue. The Apollo is documented in-depth for its role in shaping African American music history and advancing racial integration in not just entertainment, but the world at large. The Apollo was a crucial platform for launching the careers of artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, James Brown, and Aretha Franklin, and remains a symbol of lasting cultural and social impact. Performing at The Apollo is widely considered a milestone in an artist’s career. Playing The Apollo is regarded as a sign that artists have "arrived" at a certain level of prestige. There is no indication that City Winery holds a similar cultural weight or reputation. This extensive, independent, and well-documented influence of significant cultural impact is why the Apollo Theater meets notability requirements to justify a standalone article.

By contrast, City Winery, founded in 2008, is one of many interchangeable venues referenced as part of a larger cultural moment, with no indication that it played a uniquely transformative role in shaping music history or social change like The Apollo has. City Winery is not singled out as particularly noteworthy in its own right. Instead, it is used as one interchangeable data point among many to illustrate a broader trend. For a venue to warrant a standalone article, there must be clear evidence of unique and lasting cultural significance, such as with The Apollo Theater, not just inclusion as an interchangeable example in a broader cultural study. If City Winery had a chapter-length examination detailing its role in shaping a music movement, as The Apollo does, it might be different, but instead, it is presented alongside numerous other interchangeable venues in a way that does not establish individual notability.

Similarly, the Lou Reed source must be considered in context. If City Winery is one of many venues discussed in passing in a biography about Lou Reed, rather than being the subject of meaningful analysis in its own right, it does not meet WP:GNG’s depth requirement. Additionally, WP:NOTINHERITED applies both to the venue and to Dorf. A notable artist performing at a venue does not automatically confer lasting notability upon the venue itself without clear evidence of its distinct cultural impact, as in the Apollo Theater example above. Even if multiple sources acknowledge that Reed performed at City Winery, that alone does not elevate the venue’s independent encyclopedic significance.

Likewise, the fact that Michael Dorf knew Lou Reed does not establish Dorf’s notability in his own right (WP:NOTINHERITED). Many individuals who knew Reed well have contributed substantive statements to biographical works about him, but that does not mean they each warrant their own Wikipedia articles, just as every venue mentioned in the biography does not automatically qualify for a standalone page. Being qualified to provide commentary on a notable person does not justify an article. At most, the commentary used to gather data about Reed supports a citation within the Lou Reed article itself.

Regarding the Fox source, I recognize that it discusses City Winery within a larger conversation about real estate and urban development, but I question whether that discussion is in-depth enough to establish independent notability. If the venue is merely mentioned as one of many businesses affected by real estate trends rather than as a significant cultural entity in its own right, then this coverage does not meet WP:GNG. The source documents business activity at a given moment in time, but it does not assess any lasting cultural impact of the venue itself. At most, it might justify a citation within an article about urban development in that city at that moment in time, but not for a standalone article about City Winery.

I disagree that the restaurant nightlife advertisement publication substantiates notability. WP:NORG explicitly distinguishes between general food reviews, advertisements, and in-depth analysis that establishes lasting significance. These are advertisements and not reviews, however, for argument's sake, even if it were an independent review, it primarily discusses food, ambiance, and service. None of those items contribute to establishing historical or cultural significance. For a venue to meet notability standards, sources would need to analyze its unique role in music, performance, or cultural movements, rather than simply describing it as a location where artists perform and people can go to drink or dine. However, these sources are not in-depth analyses; they are advertising copy submitted to create the nightlife guide, going so far as to include a direct promotional quote from the venue’s manager, which indicates a conflict of interest rather than independent evaluation.

The Weekends in Chicago publication is a curated nightlife guide, composed of PR material and promotional blurbs similar to what would be found in a VisitChicago tourism booklet. It functions not as an independent critical source but as a commercially motivated directory meant to promote local businesses. These are commonly created marketing materials published by newspapers designed to promote commerce in their city. As such, the Weekends publication's purpose is to drive commerce, not to provide critical analysis of historical or cultural impact. Simply being listed among other venues in an entertainment guide is not equivalent to being the subject of sustained, in-depth, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG.

Additionally, producing promotional recipe books featuring local businesses is a common marketing strategy that does not, in itself, establish significance. These books are often sold commercially, but their purpose is cross-promotional rather than editorial, typically serving as a low-cost marketing gimmick to generate sales within a specific region. Restaurants contribute free recipes in exchange for advertising, making these books a standard promotional tool rather than an independent, in-depth cultural analysis. The inclusion of City Winery in such a publication does not indicate historical or cultural significance, but rather that it was one of many businesses that opted to participate for mutual promotional benefit. These books function primarily as advertising compilations, not as critical examinations of a venue’s lasting impact. As such, they are insufficient to establish notability under WP:GNG.

I acknowledge that some of these sources provide useful context about City Winery, but none appear to provide substantial, sustained, or independent coverage that meets Wikipedia’s notability standards for genuine cultural impact. If more robust sources existed that provided deeper, independent analysis of City Winery’s impact beyond food service and real estate, I would be open to reassessing its notability. However, based on the sources presented, deletion remains the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree, and I think at this point, it's best to let other editors form their own opinions about those sources. Again, I appreciate that you must have had quite a bit of aggravation over the promotional editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate that these are not always clear-cut cases, and it’s okay for us to disagree. I genuinely mean it when I say that I appreciate the work and effort you’ve put into this, it’s quality research. We’re both just trying to figure out the best way to apply the guidelines and solve a tricky issue together. I respect both you and the discussion, and I’m glad we could have it. I’ve actually learned a lot from it. Qinifer (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: There seems to be enough sourcing to justify a small article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, the articles in question (see below) have a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on their Talk pages. The COI concerns are not hypothetical, they have been thoroughly documented for years, including extensive reports on Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) (which the City Winery Talk page directs all COI discussion to in order to keep it in one place), where multiple editors flagged that Dorf’s verified relatives and employees were creating and/or manipulating this and other Michael Dorf related pages as part of a coordinated PR effort to promote Michael Dorf's business ventures. Past revisions contained material directly copied from the subject’s website, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOTADVERTISING.

To address the nominator’s comments, while the page may have originally been created in good faith, it was subsequently hijacked by third party actors' promotional interests, as extensively documented. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery), this article has been abused by subsequent actors to promote an individual and his business interests rather than as a neutral encyclopedia entry. Retaining this page serves no encyclopedic purpose beyond acting as a business directory entry, which is explicitly against Wikipedia’s purpose. Qinifer (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By way of further explanation, further evidence supporting deletion can be found on the Talk:Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) - Wikipedia page, where long-term WP:COI violations are documented. The documentation demonstrates sustained efforts to use the Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery pages as promotional tools for Michael Dorf’s businesses. Edits were made by accounts closely linked to Dorf, including individuals sharing his last name and identified as his immediate family members, as well as repeated undisclosed paid editing. While some edits were reverted, others were not, and the underlying promotional nature of these articles were never meaningfully corrected. Given Wikipedia’s policies against promotional content (WP:NOTADIRECTORY), its requirement for significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and the other reasons I stated in my previous response, this page should be deleted. Qinifer (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not notable under the policy page. Violates these criteria for inclusion in the Encyclopedia:

- Presumed: Tryptofish did find sources, but 5 news sources covering your business is not significant coverage.

- Independent of the subject: "Each City Winery location is a fully functioning urban winery, importing grapes from all over the world to create unique locally made wines.". That is not a neutral tone. DotesConks (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: none of those 5 sources were news sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, @DotesConks.

My concern, based on this new data, and even with you excellently cleaning up the article to eliminate content that was PR copy taken directly from their website, is that the article will remain unable to be fleshed out into one that meet's Wikipedia standards. The current content of the article is a textbook example of exactly the type of article that should be deleted under WP:NOTDIR (not a directory) and WP:CORPDEPTH (insufficient significant coverage beyond routine business reporting and PR). Wikipedia is not a business directory, and WP:NOTDIR makes it clear that simple listings of businesses do not warrant standalone articles. The content of this article amounts to little more than, "There is a business called City Winery with locations in various cities," which is precisely the kind of business cataloging Wikipedia is not meant to host. If it had meaningful cultural or historical significance (which is difficult to achieve, considering that the business is quite new and thus would be difficult to be of "historical significance"), someone would have written about that instead of just listing its offered services, where it is, and who played there.

The available citations fail to provide substantive coverage of the subject, making it impossible to write a meaningful, encyclopedic article. Instead, as stated above, what exists is a short business listing and advertising PR, because that is all that can be written with the citations available.

Additionally, WP:GNG requires significant, independent, and sustained coverage in reliable sources. However, the sources provided do not offer substantial analysis of City Winery as a unique cultural or business entity in its own right. They are either brief mentions in the context of business listings, passing references in articles about other topics, or promotional content that does not contribute to notability. Without robust secondary sources that provide a deeper examination of the company’s history, influence, or unique contributions, there is no way to expand this article into something encyclopedic.

Furthermore, the fact that notable musicians have performed at City Winery locations does not make the venue itself notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). It is merely a standard business operations statement. It is a concert venue. People perform concerts there. Nothing noteworthy about that basic business function. This is the same flawed reasoning that has led to improper justifications for similar business-oriented articles in the past. A venue's significance must be demonstrated through independent third-party coverage that focuses on the venue itself, not simply by listing artists who have played there.

To clarify:

This is just a "this place exists" article. That is not an encyclopedic reason for inclusion.

Wikipedia is not a business directory or a "document everything" database. It is an encyclopedia, and articles need to demonstrate why a subject matters in a broader historical, cultural, or societal context. Right now, the City Winery article lacks that context entirely.

The article contains: No cultural impact analysis; No historical significance; No indication that it changed or influenced anything; No evidence that it pioneered or defined a movement or trend.

Instead, the article reads like a glorified brochure or Yelp listing:

Here’s a business. Here are some locations. Here are some concerts that happened.

The current citations do not support the capacity for development of a substantial entry. If and when such coverage emerges, an article could be recreated with actual depth. At this stage, however, City Winery does not appear capable of even potentially meeting the threshold for inclusion, and deletion is the most appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
please stop bludgeoning the discussion @Qinifer or you will lose access to edit it. Star Mississippi 14:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinifer, this page is ~29,000 bytes; of that, you have contributed nearly 20,000. That is not a demonstration of academic rigour. 2A00:23C7:6BBA:ED01:CA8:12E3:13D0:8A44 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I think we need to hear from more experienced AFD participants. If you've already made an argument, please give new voices some space to review sources with fresh eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is a close one given the sources, but while there does seem to be some independent secondary sources, the widespread independent coverage in those sources is lacking based on a cursory search. If further evidence towards widespread coverage, it would be more convincing. It also doesn't help that the article as it is currently written is essentially a WP:PROMOTION. GuardianH 04:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gracia Dura Bin

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

Reason Alexthegod5 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Non notable individual who's only source of significance is that her husband named a city after her in Florida, which is already summarized in his article (Andrew Turnbull (colonist)). Alexthegod5 (talk)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Turkey. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, South Carolina, Greece, and History. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for sources, I find indications that there may be more to her. This source [61] says that she and her husband were two of the earliest members of the South Carolina Medical Society. This source [62] says (in a snippet view) "Maria Gracia Turnbull came over in the Colonial period with her husband ...[she] was a courageous, aristocratic lady, and a true partner of her husband. Not only did she play an important ..." (cut off by the snippet).

I don't know why the misspelled name is used for the article title - 18th and early 19th century sources refer to her as (Mrs) Gracia Turnbull or Maria Gracia Turnbull.

I'll try to work out how to add this to other deletion sorting lists (Greece, Florida, South Carolina) in the hope that editors who work in those areas may have access to more sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Thank you for your assistance - I tried looking up the South Carolina Medical Society and found the Medical Society of South Carolina, which was founded around the same time (1789), although neither that website nor the organization's history page mention either her nor her husband. Maybe that's a good place to start looking for some other sources that mention her? Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen Here's something I just found that might be a good place too, if you or someone else is able to get a copy https://www.amazon.com/MEDICAL-SOCIETY-SOUTH-CAROLINA-Hundred/dp/B000GS75JK Alexthegod5 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Turnbull (colonist)#Biography – I don't see much notoriety. 190.219.102.197 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 14:52, 19 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!} 03:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Urban society in China

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

This page remains an WP:ESSAY without WP:RS. Urbanization in China already covers the topic. Amigao (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has only two sources and is an essay. The topic is already covered by Urbanization in China. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 06:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although this at times reads like an essay, it is an extremely accurate representation of city life in China. It even has a few references, despite being mostly written in 2007. I cannot vote to delete this in good faith – instead, we should merge into Urbanization in China, Culture of the People's Republic of China, Education in China, Housing in China and other appropriate articles. If someone feels like pulling a WP:HEY by adding more citations and toning down the textbook-style voice, this could easily be kept as well. Toadspike [Talk] 18:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In many respects, this article is much better than Urbanization in China, which is a mess. Toadspike [Talk] 18:31, 16 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!} 02:31, 19 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!} 03:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have very clear verification policies WP:V which include WP:BURDEN which states All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the contribution. In this case I think more than 90% of the page can be deleted as there are no inline citations. On the topic it is hard to see how this could be written without being an essay with considerable personal opinion and/or personal research given the way it has been framed. Delete and if there really is a notable topic which could be written about, for goodness sakes make sure any statements and assertions are verified. JMWt (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot delete content solely for lacking inline citations. If you would like to challenge any specific claims, let me know, and I will find sources for them. In addition, this article currently cites four sources, which is not much, but you would have to check that the information cannot be found in those sources before removing it.

As someone with decent knowledge of Chinese history, I can guarantee that most of what's written is obviously true, perhaps even to a WP:BLUESKY level for people familiar with the area. I do not currently have the capacity to find sources for all of this, but deletion on the grounds of WP:V would be a terrible misapplication of that policy. If the consensus is that this page must go, it should be merged or redirected, not deleted. Toadspike [Talk] 15:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wrong. Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. You are not arguing with me, you are arguing with WP:BURDEN. JMWt (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Turnher

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

Biography of a porn performer with extravagant claims of notability sourced to a promotional user-generated IMDb biography. Other sources are user-generated or unreliable scraper sites. A WP:BEFORE search only yields a report that the subject got sued. Everything else consists of press releases, cast rosters or award rosters, no substantial secondary source coverage. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sexuality and gender, and New York. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS on ESPN personalities

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

Subject does not appear to have notability as a list topic under WP:LISTN with a complete lack of any type of reliable, secondary sourcing of the group either here or in a BEFORE. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Please provide me reliable secondary sources that meet WP:NLIST. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MLS on ESPN#Personalities as an ATD. Conyo14 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, all of the info is unsourced. I oppose a merge on that basis, but am fine with a redirect to that target. Let'srun (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section is empty, so it would be a redirect to nothing. Conyo14 (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I don't see this as a search term, I see no value in the article. Fails WP:LISTN. Govvy (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination, this should be deleted. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Davis

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

This article, apart from being a massive WP:BLPCRIME violation, doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL. A merge is not appropriate per BLPCRIME. This guy was not high profile before the ongoing scandal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Cryptocurrency, Events, Argentina, and United States of America. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to $Libra cryptocurrency scandal. As per nominator at the moment this is a WP:BLPCRIME issue (perhaps not a "massive" one IMHO). If his involvement ends up being confirmed with a conviction or other developments arise article history will be there.
Pinging @Cambalachero and @30Four as participants in a related merge discussion on Talk:$Libra cryptocurrency scandal. Oblivy (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to $Libra cryptocurrency scandal. Alternatively, an article on the La Baron family could be created since he's not the only scandal-plagued member of the family. Not notable enough for a standalone article at this time. Giannini Goldman (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Even if Davis is not relevant for a standalone article, a brief "Who is Hayden Davis?" info would be useful in the article about the scandal. But either if the article is merged or deleted, it should ultimately be turned into a redirect. Cambalachero (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a section in $Libra cryptocurrency scandal with subheadings for each of the major players (Davis, Mauricio Novelli, and KIP Protocol) would be useful. Giannini Goldman (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME says the opposite, notwithstanding how useful it would be. We don't name low-profile people who haven't been convicted; this guy hasn't even been charged with a crime yet. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Davis or Novelli are not so low-profile that WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE applies at this point: Novelli has a public Instagram account with 20,000 followers and Argentina is requesting an Interpol notice against Davis (in addition to the in-depth WSJ article on him generally rather than just the 1E and the coverage in Argentina). He's not "low profile" and it wouldn't take much more to give him Wikipedia notability. Giannini Goldman (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a lot of instagram followers does not make someone not low profile for Wikipedia purposes, nor does Interpol issuing a warrant; if an arrest warrant made someone a public figure, then BLPCRIME would be a dead letter because every criminal would be a public figure. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Realize you're an admin but what standard would you use for "public figure" or "well known"? WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article." It suggests three levels of notoriety: not well-known/low-profile, well-known/public figure but not Wikipedia notable, and Wikipedia notable. Novelli and Davis seem to fit into the middle category and fit the tests described at WP:WIALPI for being high profile without achieving Wiki notability so we should be able to discuss allegations against them covered in multiple reliable sources (without a presumption of conviction) as WP:WELLKNOWN? Giannini Goldman (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My being an admin is irrelevant; sometimes I'm wrong. Maybe the others meet the public figure guideline; I just don't see Davis as meeting that since all of the news stories appear to have only come out because of his alleged involvement in this scheme. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through the criteria at WP:Who is a low-profile individual and Davis seems to meet all of the criteria for being "high profile" except maybe "eminence"? Even there I think there's a strong argument that he's sought "a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor".

I realize that's not a policy but it is linked from WP:PUBLICFIGURE which is policy? Giannini Goldman (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that LOWKEY is generally how we determine who is or is not a public figure. To go through each factor:

Media attention: he's only received any because of the scandal. Using that media attention to establish that an individual is high profile would undermine WP:BLPCRIME because that implies that any person publicly accused of a crime that receives media coverage would be per se high profile.
Promotional activity: I haven't seen any evidence of that. Indeed, TheStreet piece cited in the article states: "It's a pretty staggering climb to notoriety for Davis, the CEO of Kelsier Ventures who was a relatively unheard of Liberty University graduate in crypto media circles before his LIBRA token attracted so much attention that he had to start making the rounds in damage control interviews."
Appearances and performances: again, I haven't seen evidence of appearances other than what TheStreet called "damage control interviews".
Eminence: obviously not.
Behavior pattern and activity level: this factor basically requires that the subject meet BLP1E, which Davis does not.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the last two messages to the talk page. Hope it's ok to continue there since it's not really about deleting the standalone article. Giannini Goldman (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the discussion here. Merging is an ATD that can come out of an AfD. RE Special:Diff/1282188829: I don't think there's a contradiction. Media attention needs to be related to someone doing notable things; BLP1E and BLPCRIME make clear that committing a run-of-the-mill crime (in this case, allegedly some sort of fraud) isn't enough. Otherwise, every subway pusher in NYC would be high profile because they'll have been covered by the NY Post, Daily News, 1010 WINS, channel 11, Newsweek, the NY Times, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I'm a bit biased considering I wrote the article. I see plenty of arguments to merge the article to the $Libra cryptocurrency scandal, which is unfortunate for me, but I agree with Giannini Goldman in one regard: there's plenty of RS & good info within those sources to create a potential LeBaron family page & list him there as well. (Redacted) If he is not independently notable now, I am very confident that this article will be restored in due time. I'm willing to accept if this assessment is incorrect, but in my opinion, his activities & resulting controversy with multiple governments (American & Argentine) felt notable. A majority of the information on this page should exist on Wikipedia in some regard, especially considering Davis/Kelsier's role in multiple variations of the same scheme, considering the publications reporting on this. 30Four (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, now that we have a strong Keep, I see no consensus. Ordinarily, I'd close this as a Merge but the nominator has strong objections to that outcome. How about the Redirect option? Does that cross a line for editors sensitive to coverage of low profile indidividuals?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with $Libra cryptocurrency scandal: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My nom was to delete, not merge. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involve (think tank)

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

This article is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a thorough WP:BEFORE to the best of my ability. Andrew Cave does not make the charity notable (WP:INHERITORG).

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Involve Foundation	Self-published, it is primary source.	~ I would think so.	Involve wrote about Involve.	✘ No
Companies House, UK	~ Technically, but are just routine listings.	Government agency. Verified.	Only about Involve.	~ Partial
Friedrich-Elbert-Siftung	Written by independent authors. No affiliation.	Academic paper.	Is only mentioned as a citation. However the concept is the same.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are just mentions.Darkm777 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have been doing my best to learn more, I admit to being quite out of my depth regarding Wikipedia technical conventions, language, etc. so have recused myself from the recent content discussion on the Involve (think-tank) entry. The proposal to delete the Involve entry entirely, however, is a bridge too far, and one I vehemently disagree with. (I strongly suspect that those editors proposing deletion are connected to Involve in some way (or even paid by them?) and simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet.) Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship IMHO. Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve has apparently resulted in a petition to the UK government petitions service to amend the UK Charities Act so as to close the revolving door between industry lobbyists and charities by introducing a 5-year ban on them taking up trustee posts after leaving their industry position: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/deborah-wa-foulkes_charitygovernance-corruption-bigtobacco-activity-7306164788068306945-dKWb?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios&rcm=ACoAAASIBdEB7nQE4xbTkWoM0hmYURwNkITtMeU This petition has acquired the requisite number of preliminary signatures and is now at the checking stage. Once it goes public on the government website people will quite rightly want to inform themselves about the background to it and Wikipedia will have done them a great disservice by deleting the Involve entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalk giant (talk • contribs) 09:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from accusing a COI or Paid editing with no background. I am sure @Darkm777 would agree. I found the article through random article (alt-shift-x). For the record I have no affiliation with Involve or any comapany/group. "simply want to sweep the whole discussion under the carpet" again, stop accusing editors.

"Think-tanks are a vital part of UK society and this one plays a major role in it. Deleting the entry would be a blatant case of censorship" If you can prove it with references I will withdraw my nom, till then you have no basis that this think tank is notable.

"Also, the controversy about the Big Tobacco trustee at Involve", Please read WP:INHERITORG, the Big Tobacco trustee will not make Involve notable. If you think the petition or the trustee are notable write about them, but the think tank doesn't inherit the notability. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalk giant I would be glad to reconsider my nomination should you produce some better sources. It doesn't matter how important or popular you think this organization is. If they were popular enough they would have more news coverage and qualify. This is the basis of Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Darkm777 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus one. Same sentiment. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I can't delete this as a Soft Deletion as there is an unbolded Keep vote here. We will need to hear from a few more participants. It would be most helpful if you responded to the source analysis or brought up any new sources you have located.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hershii LiqCour-Jeté

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

Non notable person other than being a contestant on a show Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person competed on a little known drag show for one season to be the "drag queen". Not notable at all. DotesConks (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DotesConks, I'm editing your reply to say "delete". ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary I'm not sure why I said oppose there, but thank you for correcting my mistake DotesConks (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How, @DotesConks, is RuPaul's Drag Race a "little known drag show"? I'm not a fan of the (reality show) genre, and have never watched - but I'm well aware of it's existence, that it's shown around the world, and that it spawned an entire franchise. Surely this is very well known (and loved) show. Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz Interesting, I have personally never heard of it until right now which is why I thought it was not notable. DotesConks (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has 24 Emmys - and dozens more nominations. It's a massive high-quality well-respected and well-received show for many years. But I guess if one doesn't know. Nfitz (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DotesConks, participants in AFD discussions shouldn't base their arguments on what they know but on their evaluation of sources in the article and ones they find when they do a search. Pleases do your due diligence if you want to fully participate in deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have found some sources covering this person. Yahoo Pride (not sure if that's reliable), Gay Times (not sure of this one either, seems like a lot of "Madonna Stuns in New Selfie" crap), and an interview with Billboard.

I'll also note that "not notable apart from being a contestant on a show" and "the show they competed on is little-known" (which is really not true, it's a famous show) are not policy-based arguments; deletion arguments should derive from the notability guidelines. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This coverage does not seem significant enough to me for this person to meet the GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zanahary Thank you for the feedback! So just in the future, notability guidelines generally include coverage even if it's (for example) someone who starred in one show or movie? Let me know if I should ask this on your talk page too Alexthegod5 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone whose entire career (and notability) comes from a TV show appearance can still be notable and meet GNG. It's just unlikely that they would. But take Dorinda Medley for example: she was not a public figure before being cast on the Real Housewives of New York, and now she is an independently notable person. In my opinion, coverage of a person that is about nothing but their time on a reality show (like how Survivor contestants often get a bunch of Entertainment Weekly articles about them and interviews after they're voted off) does not demonstrate notability, but I don't know what the community's consensus on that sort of thing is. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Sexuality and gender, California, Georgia (U.S. state), and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:HEY. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nominator that coverage is about appearance on one show which to me fails WP:ENTERTAINER and falls under WP:BLP1E. Most references are about the appearance on the show and many are interviews. If the subject goes on to have additional roles and/or significant contributions as an entertainer I'd be open to revisiting. Nnev66 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zombieboy

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

Fails WP:NSONG, which specifies that coverage of a song in the context of album reviews is insufficient to demonstrate notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @RangersRus, who accepted this at AFC. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The song made it to the top charts on UK billboard and on Billboard Hot 100 chart. So it meets the criteria Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. and also has coverage by The Guardian and by Billboard, and Capitalfm, UK's No.1 Hit Music Station. RangersRus (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Charting is not a criterion for notability. That's listed under the following: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. The Guardian source is an album review, which the guideline explicitly states does not contribute to notability for a song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Capitalfm and Billboard have coverage focusing on the song alone. RangersRus (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not enough coverage to establish notability. The Billboard is totally trivial, just "Lady Gaga posts a TikTok" and is not about the song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: That's not what WP:NSONGS defines as "trivial". Again, please read the rules instead of coming up with your own.

"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.

If you find the content of the article trivial, that's your own personal problem. — Amenvodka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That it excludes unreliable sources does not mean it includes everything not published by an unreliable source. All encyclopedic subjects require WP:SIGCOV. "Lady Gaga posted a TikTok set to this song" does not make this song notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album) this doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews or artist commentary just give brief mentions that are less than a cumulative paragraph. Definitely not sufficient for a separate article, so the draft shouldn't have been accepted at AFC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above. RangersRus (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference:
Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject^[3] of multiple,^[4] non-trivial^[5] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.^[6] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
A standalone article about a song should satisfy the above criteria. Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.
1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
2. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.
꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.
^ The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day.
^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.
^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

Comment. The sources I agree do not have not enough coverage and the ones that do are not independent of the artist. But the song has made it on many charts that are national or significant music or sales charts. Per WP:NSONG, the song meets the criteria Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable). The may be notable is presumptive but not denying notability. I will leave it to this. RangersRus (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to believe "may be notable" is synonymous with "probably notable". That is a common mistake among Wikipedians and is why the "not that it is notable" part gets included (even when often overlooked). Either way, whenever there is little to no coverage from sources that aren't album reviews or artist commentary, it becomes moot whether a song enters any charts. We thus shouldn't assume that charting can compensate for minimal depth in sources that discuss the song at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probably TOOSOON for the song. The Billboard article about the dance trend is probably the best source. Rest are rather trivial coverage. The song was only released this month, probably needs time before the music-consuming public decides if it's the "killer hit of the summer" or some such thing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That chart clause is in the context of things about a song that are positive indicators that a search for coverage would make a case for notability. The coverage is still what establishes notability. Charting does not presume notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that if the song gets popular, people will write about it. That's usually what I've had to wait for when writing articles in the past. The song is big, but not big enough as no one's written about it yet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was somehow misplaced—this was a reply to this comment, not yours. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect to the album’s page ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm voting the same as I did for the other recently-nominated Lady Gaga songs. I think a fork from the album article is appropriate given the charting, coverage, and amount of content here. I'd prefer to see this article expanded and improved, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 14:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please make an argument @Randompersonediting ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggested that the article be moved to a draft for further improvement. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 15:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has enough verifiable content to expand further, including chart performance and critical reception. There's also potential for future updates on live performances and additional media coverage as the Mayhem era continues.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CHr0m4tiko0, were you canvassed here on your Talk page? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While the message Another Believer left on CHr0m4tiko0's talk page was given neutral phrasing instead of asking for a specific stance, and thus technically wouldn't count as canvassing, I personally wouldn't be surprised if the intent was to obtain another "keep" vote here. I definitely got suspicious when seeing a quick follow-up complaining about AFD nominations. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in getting editors to collaborate and help improve the article. I am not particularly worried about the outcome of this discussion or what happens to any of the Lady Gaga song articles. I think the topics are notable, but if the articles get moved back into the draft space, who cares. I am not going to lose any sleep over this. I am going to move on to other areas of Wikipedia -- working on Gaga songs hasn't really been enjoyable. Happy editing, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've supported all the song articles from Mayhem because there's clearly a lot of sourced content—chart performance, critical reviews, and more—that can be properly developed in each case. As one of the main contributors to the album article, I’ve often tried to add more material, though some of it gets trimmed for relevance or length. That’s why I support this and the other song pages: to ensure that information has a place if and when it's appropriate to include it. Plus, the era is just getting started—there’s still a lot to come that will further expand these articles. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every song from the album warrants a page, also let's not perpetuate the misconception that charts entitle them to articles, and critical reviews only count towards notability when they're not just part of general album reviews. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point—I'm not saying charts or reviews alone are enough. Just contributing to what's already there, not creating these pages from scratch. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. We either need better sources or perhaps more support for a Redirect which is typically the outcome in AFDs about songs which have borderline notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The track doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews or artist commentary just give brief mentions. At least for now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gļebs Basins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. No significant coverage found. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Latvia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Fly List Kids

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

Does not pass WP:NORG. Mentioned in passing in some articles but no sigcov outside of non-independent and opinion sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Canada. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, doesn't pass WP:NORG. Media is mostly passing mentions or primary sources. XwycP3 (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Sulivan Sauvey

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

This is technically now a copyright violation because the original frwiki article this is a translation of was deleted (for failing their quite different notability rules). Even if it wasn't I am not sure this passes NEVENT. Coverage is mostly just when it happened, afterwards there's some but not a lot, so idk if WP:LASTING is satisfied: [63] [64] [65] idk if that is enough. Also aforementioned copyright violation PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IndustryMasters

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

IndustryMasters the company(?) and IndustryMasters the game (formerly IndustryPlayer) fail WP:ORG. I could not find in-depth coverage in reliable sources online.

There are five sources cited but actually eight in total; three are pasted in the middle of the article as external links. Citation 1 is a permanently dead link. Citations 2 to 4 verify that the IndustryMasters website was used to host one event (one game) of a competition in India from 2006 to 2010. Citation 5 does not mention, but is being used to verify the existence of, the event and competition. The first external link is a YouTube video announcing that IndustryMasters won a Learning Technologies Award, a private initiative. The second external link is a WBS source that briefly mentions IndustryMasters twice in the context of the WBS working with them. The Warwick Business School source is an announcement of its partnership with IndustryMasters.

The sourced content does not indicate anything particularly remarkable about the IndustryMasters company(?) and the rest of the article, including information about its gameplay and utility, is wholly unsourced. Its biggest claim to fame is winning an award in 2020 in its niche subset of educational games.

This article was recreated by Sunshinebr after its preceding article IndustryPlayer was deleted on 6 June 2008. Sunshinebr justified the recreation by saying they added sources, but evidently the sources are not in-depth or independent of the company and nobody had bothered scrutinising them until now. All of this article's content was written by Sunshinebr (other users' edits being general cleanup) and nearly all of Sunshinebr's edits are limited to this article.

Seems to me that an article for a non-notable game and later company was recreated and managed to pass unnoticed for several years. Yet through all that time, not one reliable, independent source covered either the game or company in detail, hence a failure of WP:ORG. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. Yue🌙 01:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bathinda military station firing

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. There's news he got sentenced but basically nothing else between or since. Though, I do not know what the names of the event and people would be in the native language, so I could not search that. If notability proving coverage does exist there feel free to present it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From reviewing news coverage of the event, it seems like an unfortunate outgrowth of a fight amongst soldiers with no lasting significance or broad coverage. I couldn't identify a suitable WP:ATD target either. Longhornsg (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Barton

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

The subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Notably, out of the four articles on the page, two are self-published by the subject. TheWikiholic (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Music, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: have expanded with book review, radio series review, photo-essay and forthcoming memoir, all sourced. PamD 09:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has 8 references, with 4 from The Guardian and 1 from The Independent, both of which the subject has written for. Additionally, 2 references are written by the subject themselves. However, the article still lacks WP:SIGCOV]] as the sources primarily focus on reviews related to the subject, lacking the in-depth coverage essential for a BLP. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on improvements by PamD, I have removed the older January 2013 and December 2020 tags. Let's see how this goes. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Presa

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

Non-notable credits, likely to fail WP:N/CREATIVE KH-1 (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All credits may be reviewed as noteworthy, with sources directing to IMDB to prove legitimacy DOANPR (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald L. Palmer

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

Neither the criminal the victims nor the event pass any notability guideline we have, whether for execution or the crime. There are also two criminals and two victims here so if it was notable it should have been written as "Murder of Charles Sponhaltz and Steven Vargo" but it's not notable that way either (unless, I guess, you're using the execution as the claim of notability, but the article doesn't do that successfully either). Redirect to List of people executed in Ohio, where he is listed? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Ohio. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Isla Bell

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. Sources are all thing happened with little commentary, making them WP:PRIMARYNEWS PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I do not know what the moderators, other editors would like. Australia is different to the US/UK - we do not have talk shows that discuss events. We have the news bulletins on television/radio and the newspapers. This is an on-going case and the comments section of any article about this (when opened) shows how outraged Australians are over this.

A young woman was taken, murdered, then her body dumped - Wikipedia has articles about a lot less. The trial, details of this are still yet to come; anticipating it to be a big trial with lots of information/evidence etc to be released (because we are in pre-trial stage so not everything is released - that would destroy the prosecutors case) someone took the initiative to start a page and start compiling the information and what because the Made for TV Movie isn't already being developed it's not enough for editors to warrant a page.

For the record there are other things happening in Australia as well; the Brisbane Olympic Games finally announced what they are doing, we had the Federal Budget handed down, we have an impending Election which is all taking up news time but because this isn't top story every night "WELP The world doesn't need to know about another woman killed by a man"? It's already a growing pandemic and you want to be part of hiding the numbers and sweeping stories about it under the rug?

Let's not forget the precedent you are setting here now... any crime that happens in the world NOTHING is allowed to be posted here until the court case is finalised and ALL evidence is available. NOTED! Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)— Thepeoplesdude (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please read it WP:NEVENT. This wouldn't be notable if it had happened in America either. There are a lot of murders. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources I found are from November 2024. No lasting impact or coverage. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an on-going case with numerous court cases to play out. There were articles posted today and there is outrage in Australia about this. Did you bother to attempt to search before deciding a case you have never heard of isn't worthy? Why because it's Australian? Do we have to tear buildings down or ensure it is the only thing anyone in the country can think about for it to be worthy of a wikipedia article.

Thought this of all places would be one you would need to fact check or resource check... guess not! Just list things for deletion we don't like... wait here I'll go get a list of pages I don't like and we can list them for deletion too. Thepeoplesdude (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:EVENT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:LASTING. I suggest you get more experience editing other articles and contributing to other AfDs to understand how deletion works. Not everything reported in the media gets an article. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Meerut Merchant Navy officer murder

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

Does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[subject-3] The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment.

[multiple-4] The number of reliable sources necessary to establish notability is different for songs from different eras. Reliable sources available (especially online) increases as one approaches the present day.

[nontrivial-5] "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. Be careful to check that the musician, record label, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular song/single are in no way affiliated with any third party source.

[6] Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the song/single. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its artist, record label, vendor or agent) have actually considered the song/single notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]