Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 10	April 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Lee Roupas

AfDs for this article:

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

It turns out a nomination I made a decade ago was never completed. This is my effort to complete it. This article states that Lee Roupas was a local elected official and a political staffer. It was created by a user whose only other contributions were for Roupas, a political ally of Roupas, and a political opponent of Roupas.

Lee Roupas was a local elected official as the township committeeman elected in the Republican primary amongst Palos Township residents (an electorate of 3,053 voters) and then later chosen among the 80 committeemen to be the county party chairman. While local officials are neither notable or not notable, the bar requires meeting a 10-year historical significance test that Roupas does not meet. Nor did anything of note happen that would warrant him getting an article for it happening.

The article also covers his political staffer roles. The use of vague terms like "staff" are meant to hide his title for the 2004 Republican National Convention was "assistant to the director for communications." This was not a notable role nor are hired mid-level roles for state parties notable roles. We often remove state party chairs. Given the political chapter of his life has largely ended and that he has since he has moved to a neighboring county to be an assistant state's attorney (this would be hired staff not an elected role or political appointment), his article now reads as masking the lack of notability via building a biography. Mpen320 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources seem to be about a political staffer, nothing notable. I can't find any articles about this person. Not sure what the AfD in 2011 was about, I suppose we had different notability standards then. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. For context, the first AfD ended in "no consensus" after one keep vote and after relisting resulted in a single addition vote for weak keep. A total of 3 users participated and contributed a few sentences in total. As the deletion stream for politics demonstrates, such an AfD would be relisted for a second time if done today. There was a second nomination that was a botched creation by me when I was less familiar with AfDs. In retrospect, I think making a 3rd nomination instead of trying to recreate the 2nd nomination page was an error on my part since it will create the illusion that there have been two discussions.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The few sources that give WP:SIGCOV are about his career not his political staff appointment. Those about his career pass WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What sources offer SIGCOV about his legal career? Everything in here is local coverage about a local figure. Let's review the citations: his middle initial in a legal directory, a student newspaper about a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL student council race, a self-published letter to the editor to a political blog, three paragraphs in a local newspaper about a local appointment reserved for his political party, a quote given in a North Carolina newspaper about a referendum of which he is not even tangentially the subject, public statements as the president of a statewide niche occupational group that would not pass what is laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) at least one of which is self-published. I also did a newspaper search before nominating this yesterday and found nothing that says his legal career is any more notable than any other attorney in a local prosecutor's office.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ornament and Crime (album)

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

I see no evidence that this album is notable. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UCPH Department of Chemistry

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

Fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Denmark. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards keep just because this is such an old department and has the start of what looks to be a verifiable history - I just can't find it because I don't know any Danish and have to rely on Google Translate to find anything useful. If no one else can find information about it (the other departments also pretty heavily rely on primary sources, though they are in general better sourced) then it would probably be best to merge to University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science. Recon rabbit 15:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, but there are indications that there's enough in histories of Hans Christian Ørsted and in the quincentennial history of the University published in 1978 (and apparently held in the Rigsarkivet) to cover the history of the Chemistry institute specifically. It will need to be carefully teased apart from the history of chemistry at the Technical University of Denmark, which also involved Ørsted and some of which is apparently shared. Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahendra Jayasekera

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we are not LinkedIn nor a marketing website and stop spamming us. Bearian (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sources are primary to the subject. Mekomo (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snovi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LastJabberwocky (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found in Gnews. Gsearch only brings up bandcamp, youtube an their website. Sourcing now in the article is non-RS as the nom states. Not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all cited sources are deprecated and before search did not show anything close to meeting notability criteria. Mekomo (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duncan McCormick

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Currently the only sources in the article are primary to the teams the subject played for, and all I could find elsewhere was a couple of paragraphs at [[1]], which isn't enough for the relevant notability standards to be met IMO. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Arizona, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The most I found was this piece. Fails WP:GNG and SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brandt

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject appears to not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable WP:SIGCOV. There is some coverage from the Penn student newspaper at [[2]] but it isn't independent. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I don't agree with the sourcing in the first AfD being adequate enough. Let'srun (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSPORT. Mekomo (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keshav Prakash

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

Article subject requests deletion per Wikipedia:NPF and Wikipedia:BLPREQUESTDELETE . See VRT Ticket 2025031410001554. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this subject is barely notable, and the sourcing is a mix of good, bad and ugly, so I see no harm in deleting this article. Bearian (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search AI Overviews

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

Doesn’t expand on content already covered in the google search article and mostly unnecessary content ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's content in this article that isn't covered in Google Search, such as the lawsuit from Chegg, Google implementing link placement prioritization measures, and info about the AI's functionality (though that section isn't sourced). Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 08:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGOGO

AfDs for this article:

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

Original 2008 argument for keeping this article was based upon the fact they released two albums on major labels. They released albums on Innova Records and III Records, but III Records has notability issues itself, so I don’t see how it can upholster another article.

Also, there are few sources I can find. Google came back with All About Jazz, but that’s a database. They had one passing mention in a book from 2000. Otherwise, I’d say they’re unnotable. Roasted (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further research: I don't believe it should’ve been kept the first time. The argument was that they released an album under a major label (Innova Recordings). The article itself doesn’t source that fact. The only place on the internet I could find stating such a fact was on Discogs.com. Also, Innova's website doesn’t know of an Ogogo.

Lugnuts argued that they released on two notable labels, but I couldn’t find sources for III Records, and placed a PROD tag accordingly. It should also be noted that Armatist participated in the deletion discussion. Armatist was the creator of the Ogogo and III Records article. Roasted (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, their website mentions Ogogo. Roasted (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mungo McKay

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR, which requires that "the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." McKay played one of the leads in the low-budget film Undead, but his other roles have been rather minor. Chrisahn (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chrisahn (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough sources for a stub Wikipedia article. Eric Carpenter (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uriel (band)

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because the subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for music-related topics (see WP:NMUSIC). There are no significant independent and reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the band. The existing references are either primary, trivial mentions, or lack the depth required to establish encyclopedic notability. Without substantial third-party coverage, the article fails to demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia page. The article sounds more like advertising than a biography. Atisnakebite (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been in good standing for 19 years. Just because this editor is not familiar with, not a fan of Canterbury Scene progressive rock, that's no justification for unilaterally deleting an established Wikipedia entry. Rcarlberg (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Here the book source on both Uriel and Arzachel (page 28) and and this book. Goldmine (magazine) has three articles touching on them: [3], [4], [5]. Together these sources are more than enough. LastJabberwocky (talk) 08:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metamorfoz

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

Article about an album that fails WP:GNG. It has 36 sources, but all of them are ether unreliable, dead or not related to it at all. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Turkey. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhoIsCentreLeft yeah? so sabah, hürriyet, radikal, which are major newspapers, are unreliable, and which of the references are unrelated? Just because something is in a language you don't understand, doesn't mean it's unrelated. Use google translate. Link rot is a natural occurrnce on the internet over time (ever checked when this article waswritten?) How about first trying to inform the writer about link rot, before nominating something for delition? This album sold 300,000 copies in Turkey. Tarkan is to date the most sold artist in that country. Which part of the notability requirements does this not meet? Xia ^{talk to me} 06:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This album is simply not notable. I checked all the sources cited in this article and none proved its notability. I searched about this album on Google and got zero results. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punggol Cove Primary School

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

The entire article consists of an infobox saying what the principal of the school is and absolutely no other information. I thought it would fit under the A1 section of speedy deletion criteria, but apparently other editors didn’t think so, since that was apparently enough context to identify the subject. Doesn’t seem notable regardless, I can’t find any reliable sources covering this school. ApexParagon (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yeah, I don't think WP:CSD applies, but either way the only coverage I found were more about COVID-19 cases that have a link to this school rather than the school itself, so no notability here. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 08:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, only routine coverage. Falls short of WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come Closer (album)

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

Debut album that fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find any sources about it other than profiles. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Golddigger (film)

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

Non-notable film. I was unable to find any significant coverage about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find this mention, however it's only in snippet view so I can't see how in-depth it goes. Google translate does seem to suggest that it's likely a bit longer so could probably be used to help establish notability. I haven't checked in English yet, so there may be a bit more there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards a keep. According to this, the film did receive coverage back in the day - reviews were published in trades and film magazines. They were by fellow filmmakers and their friends, however the author makes it clear that this was probably a case of them being friendly to their peers since it wasn't a particularly cutthroat atmosphere at the time. In other words, they're most likely usable if one could find them and it's not a case of say, only Curtiz's friends writing reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At bare minimum this should redirect to the director's filmography page. But there does seem to be coverage, it just didn't make it onto the internet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This is by the legend Michael Curtiz, although I haven't seen the film, it has some prominence behind it for the name of the director. I wouldn't be surprised if this is noted in books. Per above comments and WP:OFFLINESOURCES should exist, I am inclined for a keep. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lan Fu

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

Negative undersourced BLP. Most of the article text is a WP:COATRACK for negative undersourced BLP material about someone else. I prodded this but my prod was removed by User:A. B. who provided as evidence for notability a newspaper article stating in vague terms legal charges against the subject and another newspaper article with a very brief mention that he was sentenced, neither used as footnotes for anything. I don't think these provide WP:SIGCOV. His position as deputy mayor does not pass WP:NPOL and the conviction does not have the evidence of lasting interest needed for WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to David’s comments:

I added 3, not 2, refs including a NY Times front page article
News and newspaper searches turned up more out there.
The South China Morning Post article is exclusively about Lan Fu’s troubles
When searching for refs, add Xiamen mayor to filter out other people with that name.
This was my edit summary when removing the PROD: ” remove PROD. Notable but the tagged concern remains: this may be more about the _alleged_ kidnapping of his son, Lan Meng, by Chinese authorities in Australia as a hostage for Lan Fu's return. We don't have a Lan Meng article”
This article is likely not a BLP since all the refs said LAN Fu was sentenced to death 2 decades ago as I noted in another edit summary. (There’s no lingering on Chinese death rows).
WP:NPOL: Xiamen has over 5 million inhabitants; it’s larger than every North American city except NY and larger than any city in the EU.
Re not adding footnotes to go with the refs: I’d already spent 60+ minutes doing the WP:BEFORE and I was late for lunch
- I tagged the article with an inline template and moved on.

I encourage others to look at the existing refs and what else is out there. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's best to cover this as a biography article, but the scandal itself and his involvement is covered in several books [6] [7] [8] for just a few, there are many more. He was a very major player in this scandal and he was a public figure that was convicted so at the very least his name should redirect somewhere. Xiamen is a city of 5 million so there's also probably coverage of him as a mayor in Chinese. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above as well as PARAKANYAA‘s. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: or merge to an article about the corruption scandal. The NY Times article is about a bigger scandal, Fu is mentioned briefly, archive here [9]. The SCMP source is probably better [10] (archived copy), but they both deal more with the scandal than about the individual. I suppose Fu could be notable, but there is a decent amount of sourcing about the corruption trial/event (even the books cited a few comments above mention more about the event than about this person, who is only mentioned). Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Well, you say redirect, but we don't have any article to redirect to. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's likely sourcing in Mandarin, the scandals were probably the only thing dramatic enough to make it to Anglophone printing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'd have to create the article I suppose. We have at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we keep this until we have a stub to merge it with. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Rad

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

I am unable to find any in-depth coverage of this American soccer player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Alabama, North Carolina, and Wisconsin. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond match reports [11], I don't find sourcing for this person. That's likely a primary source anyway, so of no help for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless Gift

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

Chinese television series that fail WP:GNG. Absolutely no coverage. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Valley Gymnastics Academy

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG, which requires coverage from independent sources which "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Every source is a passing mention. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAIRR

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

This organisation fails WP:NORG. Sources are none other than routine coverage. Repeat listing of prev two month old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FAIRR Initiative which was delete. Widefox; talk 18:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Organizations, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scaife Foundations

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

Sufficiently lacks WP:SIGCOV altogether despite current grouping structure. Notability is not inherited from founders who do receive some local press coverage for interfamilial litigation over estates that mentions subject(s) in passing. All else is WP:ROUTINE for philanthropic organizations. SunnyLetO (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acclimatization, acclimation and adaptation

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

School paper redundant with Acclimatization, Acclimation and Adaptation. Gjs238 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that the article is redundant. This is close, in spirit at least, to WP:CSD#A10. Pichpich (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Buttes

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

I don't think it meets WP:GNG, I could not find any sources that were more than just geographic information. Thx56 | Talk to me! 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thx56 | Talk to me! 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information found, fails WP:NGEO for lack of sources other than a few passing mentions in primary publications, e.g. [12]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all of the sources that I found mention it simply as part of an "inconspicuous upland" that is the eastern border of the Antelope Valley, that seems to be the place that this belongs in Wikipedia. Alas, neither article gives any clue that these subjects are connected. Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Serrano

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

Declined prod with no attempt to add additional sources. Lacking third party in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Puerto Rico. LibStar (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puerto Rico at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where the subject is mentioned. Fails GNG due to no SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider my !vote if sources come up, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Frank Anchor. Svartner (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded the article with several new sources that clear the bar for WP:SIGCOV, especially when taken together with WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". With the new details I've found, I'm hoping more sources can be found as well as there are many different Víctor Serranos but you can narrow the search by specifying one of the details alongside the name. Pinging User:Frank Anchor and User:Svartner to take a look at the new sources. Subject was a Puerto Rican record-holder and Olympian with a long career throughout the 1970s and 1980s. --Habst (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine for me, keep per WP:HEY. Svartner (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the excellent work done by Habst to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agripa Mwausegha

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

Declined prod with no attempt to add additional sources. Lacking third party in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malawi at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics, where the subject is mentioned. Fails GNG due to no SIGCOV. Willing to reconsider my !vote if sources come up, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 17:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I just improved the article with some new third-party WP:RS. I'll add that there is usually no obligation for a person contesting a PROD to do anything in particular; for the most part, PRODs can be challenged for any reason or no reason at all.

I think the WP:NEXIST case is strong for this subject, with achievements going far beyond just "participation" but qualifying in four events across three different major international competitions. Malawi is a notoriously difficult country to research, and every single one of the newspapers in Malawi are all either not accessible at all, or do not have online archives going back to the 1980s when Mwausegha was most prominent. Should someone search even one of these daily papers in the 1980s and find nothing on Mwausegha, I would happily retract my !vote. But evidence from similar AfDs shows that Olympians of Mwausegha's caliber tend to have coverage available when we can actually access the relevant archives. --Habst (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malawi at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics: WP:SPORTSBASIC requires at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV to be included, and currently there is nothing of the sort here, as the only sources are race results which don't provide the in-depth, secondary coverage we need. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreation if actual significant coverage can be found. Let'srun (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyn Free

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

Redirect to 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in Oklahoma. This article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This person is a former congressional candidate and former district attorney. The election itself was particularly unnoteworthy and has had no lasting signficance. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or misconduct (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell) or being a local politician who happens to be famous for another reason (Brandon Bochenski as Mayor of Grand Forks or Kane as the county executive for Knox County.

While the article mentions she is the first woman and first Native American to be a district attorney for two specific counties. Johnston Murray served as a Governor decades prior. Alice Robertson, Bessie S. McColgin, and Lamar Looney all held office in the 1920s. She was predated by a number of female local politicians as well. This assumes it is true. While I do not believe Kalyn Free would lie, the citation for the first is self-published and I have found nothing at NewsBank to serve as a nonprimary source. She could be mistaken.

In an effort to see if Free's legal career meets GNG, I reviewed the informal list provided by User:Bearian and have found nothing to establish GNG is met here. She was the President of the Native American Bar Association in 1998. Given their more recent 990s on ProPublica's website, I'm not sure that is notable enough to move her towards meeting GNG. This article has been marked with issues since May 2017. It's time to make a decision. Mpen320 (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Ethnic groups, Law, and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC but remove issues (even to a stub). I think there is enough sources from reputable organisations including this pub by the University of Oklahoma Press (already in the article) to demonstrate notability. Tamsier (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up. Is this the entirety of the mention of her in the Voices from the Heartland: Volume II citation? It's a single paragraph in a 250-page book. I do see her name is mentioned on another page in the book, but that search does not allow me to preview beyond two lines of page 69.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That, in addition to the other sources cited is sufficient to confirm notability in accordance with our notability guidelines. It is not a one line mention as per the spirit of our guideline. We don't necessarily need a whole page dedicated to them for notability. That's why I say perhaps remove the issues and reduce to stub if necessary using the already reliable sources cited. In my opinion, that's the best way to go, but as far as notability, there are sufficient sources confirming notability, and at the very least, passed the BASIC test. Tamsier (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been editing for fourteen years. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and I do not believe she meets WP:BASIC based on being included as one of dozens of subjects in a book, even if that book was published by a university press. I belive I make my point why the rest of the coverage is either run of the mill or does not contribute to GNG and I'll just let the AfD play out.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four Cypresses (song)

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

Does not meet GNG, could merge with Grizzly Bear (band) but the only listed sources is one website and a Instagram post; not notable. Also, significant portion of article is a quote. GoldRomean (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social media and the effects on American adolescents

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

Not even trying to be anything other than an essay. The sources are high-quality (even if already dated), but it flunks WP:FORUM criterion 1 and WP:SOAPBOX. Patrick (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - An article on this topic seems useful, and as noted above, it's well sourced(if dated). But structuring this into something article-worthy seems like it would effectively require rewriting it from the ground up.
Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking my delete and changing to Draft per Oaktree b. The sources that are currently there could be useful for a rewritten article and should be preserved.Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 18:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Social science, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is just an essay, not a Wikipedia article. Although an article on this topic would be useful, it needs to be rewritten substantially, and so the best thing is just to delete it. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: might want to !draft it, it has good sources but oh boy does it need updating. I'm sure this is still an issue with the adolescents of today. Perhaps rewrite so it's worldwide, not just in the USA though. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP:TNT applies. Created almost 10 years ago and this would require a rewrite for today. – The Grid (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone steps up to rewrite the article, I'll happily withdraw my nomination for deletion. Based on the edit histories of the major contributors, however, I'm not sure where we could draftify it and expect to get anything back. Patrick (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been through 1 rewrite in 2018. Witness Special:Permalink/852239206 and Special:Diff/852467366. It grew from that, via multiple WikiEd course assignments listed on the talk page, back to the same size as before. Uncle G (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If draft isn't an option, I'm ok with a !delete. I wouldn't want to rewrite it. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ~~Keep~~ There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).

The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[13] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a description of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[14] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating my vote to Strong Keep after reviewing the number of sources which covered this attack and it's aftermath.

And while WP:OTHER isn't usually the strongest argument, in this case if we start applying a not-policy definition of secondary source which some here are trying to use to justify the deletion of even articles where hundreds of news articles were written about an event over a period of years, then much of this site would have to be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd consider merge or redirect to an appropriate page, which is the level of treatment that this gets in the book above. To meet GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The newspaper coverage is primary, as is the state department rebuke. The book, Jewish Lives Matter has only a short entry that does not significantly describe the attack such that a wikipedia page can be written. The nature of the work shows why multiple sources are required. We are certainly not at a WP:N pass yet, and if we are to rely on this kind of sourcing to keep an article then systematic bias in our coverage is likely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> The newspaper coverage is primary...

I'm not sure this understanding of secondary sources is correct. Reading through it again, a newspaper journalist synthesizing facts regarding an incident seems sufficient to qualify as secondary:

"A Secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources"

Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

In which case, this incident got plenty of secondary source coverage over an extended period of time.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is meta. Which sources do you contest are secondary, and why? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, based on policy it seems that all that's required to be a secondary source is for someone at least one step removed from the event synthesizing facts about it. And for this story, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of examples over a period of years. Here are just a few of them:

In this Haaretz article about the conviction the journalist synthesized a bunch of related facts regarding this case.

https://archive.is/CzIV8

Here's an article which focuses on the demolition of his family's home, but also meets the metric of synthesizing facts:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/08/us-israel-palestinians-violence

Here's another one which condemns Rashida Tlaib for tweeting about the house demolition.

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/07/11/antisemitic-congresswoman-rashida-tlaib-slammed-on-twitter-for-denouncing-demolition-of-palestinian-terrorists-home-failing-to-mention-his-victim/

The US embassy issuing a condemnation is a primary source. Tlaib tweeting about it is a primary source. But if any journalist writes about these things then that's a secondary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's look at each of these:

The Haaretz article is a news report about sentencing of Muntasir Shalabi. This is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS or any good book on historiography. It is a discursive primary source, and it reports the background, that is, the shooting, saying Shalabi, a U.S. citizen, was convicted of shooting the three victims from inside his car while they were waiting at a bus stop at the Tapuah junction in the northern West Bank. and later According to his indictment Shalabi fired from close range and stopped shooting when his gun malfunctioned and fled the scene. That's not SIGCOV, but notice carefully that "According to his indictment". The news source is reporting court documents. This is a primary source for this detail also. News reporting is a primary source, and does not count towards notability, and that is Wikipedia policy. N
The Euronews article is a news report of the demolition of his house. Again, this is reporting events, and adds reported detail of the background of the events. This is a primary source. Again, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. N
The algemeiner: This is a news report of criticism of the demolition of Shalabi's home. It contains only this background on the topic of the article: Of course what Hamas lobbyist @RashidaTlaib omits to mention is fact that this home belonged to a Palestinian terrorist who murdered a Jewish Israeli man. That is not SIGCOV, and is a quotation in response to the criticism. It, too, is primary sourcing. Note that what we don't have is a source that has synthesised material here. We don't have an article that has examined the whole matter, and draw together reporting, and chosen to include this criticism, and examined its effects. Instead we have a news report that we have decided to include in the article. The synthesis is ours. Again, this is a discursive primary source, and does not count towards notability. N

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're looking at Wikipedia:PRIMARYNEWS as the best or only place to determine what a secondary source. Above you rejected my argument as "meta", but have you looked at Wikipedia:SECONDARY which defines what a secondary source is.

It only requires a few things:

At least one step removed from an event
Contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas

And here's my understanding of the word "synthesis" in this context:

Combining information from multiple sources to create a new, cohesive understanding or argument

Do you have a different understanding of the word?

And is there any disagreement with the idea that the Haaretz journalist probably talked to multiple people and maybe reviewed multiple documents to put together their news report? Bob drobbs (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARYNEWS links you to the policy page. Now look on WP:SECONDARY, scroll up a couple of paragraphs, and read note d under WP:PRIMARY. These are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Restricting participation to EC editors per WP:PIA.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I noticed another editor saying that wikipedia is not news, and though that is true, that is not what this is about. A review of the sources in both English as well as Hebrew demonstrates clear notability per WP:GNG for this article to be kept. The article also references an event from 2021. This was and is a notable event that meets our standards for encyclopedic mention. Keep all around. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bob Drobbs comments and further inquiry, my Strong Keep moves to Even stronger Keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi lijhgtn. You may only have one highlighted !vote per AfD. I am curious though: your !vote above was made at 15:26 yesterday, but you had !voted on a previous AfD just 2 minutes earlier, at 15:24. Did you do your WP:BEFORE review of the sourcing at some other time? Would you be willing to post up your source review? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I bolded text after the first and only !vote. Will it somehow count as a second one? If so, that was not my intention, I was simply bolding the second mention of "Strong Keep" and "Even Stronger Keep" for emphasis. I thought only your first bolded !vote was "counted" (and yes I know they are not simply votes and therefore it is not simply a matter of which "side" has the highest number of !votes on their side but rather which arguments are most based in policy. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, if I did something wrong, please ping me and let me know so that I come back to this thread and I will correct it. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for removing the additional bolding. It keeps things clearer for the closer. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This did not receive any – let alone significant! – secondary source coverage over time and warrants deletion for that reason. (WP:NOTNEWS / WP:SIGCOV) Already covered in Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2021, besides. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments above. Can you please clarify what your understanding of a secondary source is?

Because it appears that between coverage of this shooting and coverage of the perpetrator/aftermath dozens if not hundreds of secondary sources gave significant coverage to this story. And to clarify my use of the word "significant" these weren't just passing mentions, these were are all news articles written specifically about the incident or things directly related to it's aftermath (manhunt, trial, home demolition) which IMO should be included in the scope of this article.

As just one example, of countless examples, here is a secondary source giving coverage of the attack:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/student-shot-in-west-bank-drive-by-shooting-dies-of-injuries/ Bob drobbs (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of Israel article is a news report of the death of Yehuda Guetta. The article is news reporting throughout. As above, refer to WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Such reports are primary sources occasioned by the event (this one is occasioned by the death of the victim). These are not secondary sources demonstrating notability nor WP:LASTING effect. N Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Wikipedia:Secondary source seems like a better, and probably the definitive place, to try to get an understanding of what a secondary source is. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, scroll up a couple of paragraphs on that page and carefully read note d regarding what are primary sources. Per policy, these are primary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did scroll up. it seems 100% clear that Times of Israel (and countless other sources) aren't a primary sources based on this definition:
"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event..."

But there's also this qualification:
"For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources..."

I wasn't sure, so I had to look up how wikipedia defines "breaking news":
"Breaking-news reports often contain serious inaccuracies. As an electronic publication, Wikipedia can and should be up to date, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time. It is better to wait a day or two after an event before adding details to the encyclopedia" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Breaking_news

So it seems very clear that the only standard here is to treat news stories within 24 hours of an event with a large degree of skepticism, not that every single news article written within 6-12 months of an event is a primary source. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is just wikilawyering. Have another read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep referring to WP:PRIMARYNEWS, but that page is just an opinion essay written by some editors:
"This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community'"'

By comparison, WP:SECONDARY is policy. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an explanatory essay explaining Wikipedia policy, and which, like all explanatory essays, has a higher level of consensus than someone trying to assert that a news source is only primary if it is within 24 hours of an event. It also links quite clearly to the policy. News reports are primary sources. It is not just Wikipedia saying so.
Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.^[1]^: 69.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, WP:SECONDARY is very clear: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The ToI article provided does none of these things. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
News reports are primary sources

Yes, some very academic-focused essays make this claim, but this is not wiki policy.

There's literally a WP:In the news section featured at the top of the homepage which is written based on news reports. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage, and yes news reports are primary sources: [15] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Ramon Horta AG7

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

I've searched for sources, and found none, except one that says who Antonio Ramon Horta was (whose publisher I'm uncertain about, and which does not mention the school itself). I've no objection if someone wants to WP:MERGE this to Forest siege instead, but at present, I can find no sources that mention the name of this short-lived school. As a closed school, I don't think it meets the WP:List selection criteria for List of medical schools in the Caribbean, and adding it to List of colleges and universities in Cuba would be best if we had a solid source to add with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources do not mention this medical school, and I was unable to find any sources either. Unicorbia (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Choa Kok Sui (Master)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choa Kok Sui * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this not fall in line with WP:G4? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No because the prior AfD is very old, and the recent deletions are speedies for reasons that don't seem to apply here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still non-notable. Does not pass WP:NAUTHOR (or even [[[WP:NBIO]]). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:38, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree this page was previously deleted and salted. The preceding AFD is 18 years old. Since then, numerous independent references from credible sources have emerged regarding the subject. Consequently, it meets the criteria of WP:GNG.. Sore Shout (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nauroz Khan

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

Article is barely comprehensible and topic shows little significance/notability, no reliable source coverage GoldRomean (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has NO newspaper or third-party independent reliable sources as references, what I saw was just personal opinions used as references. Very biased and unbalanced article....Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subect is clearly notable in the Wikipedia sense, as shown by a search in Google Books. A search in Google images shows a high level of general interest. Articles on controversial subjects like this attract biased editors using poor sources, or no sources at all. That is a reason to improve and police the article, not to delete it. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources in the article, I have found four books which include coverage of this Nauroz Khan - The Politics of Ethnicity in Pakistan: The Baloch, Sindhi and Mohajir Ethnic Movements (Routledge) [16], p 63; Ethno-political Conflict in Pakistan: The Baloch Movement (Taylor & Francis) [17]; In Afghanistan's Shadow: Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); and Balochistan: Bruised, Battered and Bloodied (Bloomsbury Publishing) [18]. Ethno-political Conflict in Pakistan states that Nauroz Khan escaped from British captivity twice in 1926 and 1927 - unfortunately the page with the footnote to this info is not included in the preview. There is definitely SIGCOV in reliable, independent, secondary sources. (There is at least one other Nauroz Khan, so it's necessary to check the dates, location and tribes. One, for example, was a Mohmand who was active in the 1860s.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile government takeover

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

Article of dubious notability, having been rejected multiple times. It appears that the rationale is "not meet wp:NSONG. This article needs some input as to whether it should deleted or not, because there are sources that contribute to notability but it might not be just enough. ToadetteEdit (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this source contains daily dot deadline billboard and indy100. all of these are credible sources. although some of them are not considered to be credible sources in the credible sources list by themselves. However all 4 of those sources contribute to notability. The msn source is actually Distractify which I did not realize is a very short article. the yahoo entertainment source is actually from a source called mandatory. Mandatory is a fairly unknown source but it does talk extensively on Hostile government takeover. There is also the official Last Week Tonight episode that was mentioned in the deadline article. This may be unnecessary because the deadline article talks about it extensively. The Resetera source may not be necessary which is why it's marked in bold. it has an embed of the original video around the time the TikTok was first made and is useful since TikTok doesn't give upload dates. I think hawk tuah only has 9 sources if you don't include the source that cites it's youtube video. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is an additional source that can be used which is moby's remix of Hostile Government takeover. however sources on it aren't credible so the original TikTok would have to be sourced. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page is a mess (name not being properly capitalised, MSN/Yahoo cited instead of the original source, talk page content put on top of the article), but there's sufficient sourcing in "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it". Cortador (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. the original sources for the msn(Distractify) and yahoo entertainment(Mandatory). hopefully that doesn't change your mind. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Cactusisme: move the page to draft. Waiting for the page to be deleted and move it backed. Anyway Please don't draftify the page when it's on AFD. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, alright. Shouldn't this be miscellaneous for deletion? Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you cause the problem then your solution to the problem you caused is a solution you proposed. obviously the outcome of the page depends on the articles for deletion discussion. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Did the draft get published in mainspace? This doesn't seem appropriate. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should note the existence of Draft:Hostile Government Takeover, which would be the correct proper-name song title if notable. Also, the deletion logs of Hostile Government Takeover, Hostile government Takeover and the deletion log of this deletion proposal might also be of interest. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - its a pretty sloppily written article, but a dedicated Billboard (magazine) article and getting coverage for being discussed on a major late night television show are pretty strong arguments towards notability. I'd lean closer to cleaning up or draftifying than I would deletion... Sergecross73 msg me 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable song entirely; without the LWT notice, it's just another viral thing that would struggle to get 30 seconds otherwise because most mainstream news shows and articles would not highlight this as a viral trend, and the sources for it (discounting how the creator doesn't understand content syndication by using web portals as sources) are fully unreliable of the 'explain it to me as if I was five and give me some terrible Taboola ads too' type. This isn't even considering the content of the article, which gives me a flashback to 2006 article standards in the worst way. Nathannah • 📮 21:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so youre essentially saying that Hostile government takeover remixed by Moby covered by John Oliver sold as a song on spotify with around 400,000 streams doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. the hostile government takeover song from Billboard currently has 796,000 views.(admittedly it's growth is slowing) But I appreciate your feedback on the article. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discounting the social media and unreliable sources, we're not really left with much other than pages that are just summarizing what other people say on social media. Yes a dedicated Billboard article is impressive, but there really isn't much more than that of any other viral tiktok sound. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do you mean your not counting indy100 deadline or the dailydot. admittedly you already mentioned billboard. those other sources were prima facie information and were used for self evident information like view counts. I marked the sources as primary sources in bold but admittedly there needs to be a better system. maybe someone might have an idea how to do that. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
indy100 deadline dailydot and billboard are considered sources that can be used for notability. there were other sources distractify and mandatory covered by msn and yahoo entertainment respectively but they don't contribute as much to notability. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Songs go viral all the time and I could find no evidence of long term notability. The article is in really rough shape, I tried my best to delete obvious nonsense for the sake of anyone coming across it, so WP:TNT probably applies as well. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG, but sympathetic to draftifying on WP:TNT grounds I'm really surprised it made it into the mainspace in this shape. In my view, there are four sources which pass WP:NSONG: the Billboard, Deadline, Mandatory, and indy100 articles. Cradleofcivilization, I say this only respectfully, but the article would be less likely to be deleted if you reformat to resemble comparable articles about viral songs - see for example United Breaks Guitars. Try to use the Infobox template. Flip^and Flopped ツ 06:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well I would but I don't have permission to post a photo of the album art for Hostile Government Takeover. Id appreciate it if someone added an infobox. I mean it's a good idea, but youre not allowed to post photos on wikipedia you don't have the rights to. At least I think that's the rule. It's definetly good advice. the page went through a lot of edits but you may have seen the most up to date version of the page. Anyway thank you for the good advice. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay well I added the infobox. unfortunately it doesn't contain the album art. I added Spotify as a source so I could reference it's metadata. I cleaned up the second paragraph slightly because it didn't flow well. The source is a bit confusing so there are I think 2 confusing sentences on the page. Essentially the song hostile government takeover is based on a edm remix of a viral tiktok of A gift from Todd singing hostile government takeover. the full song is then based on that edm remix. Those are only two sentences though. the rest of the page flows pretty well. Although im a little confused about notability as that's been the only notes I've received up and till this point. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case there's some confusion, AFAICT, it's only in main space because Cradleofcivilization decided to skip AfC and moved it themselves despite their inexperience. Technically as they were autoconfirmed and don't have a CoI AFAIK, they're allowed to do that, but I'd agree it was a major mistake and would be better if this is moved back to draftspace and allowed to go through AfC or at least is only moved back to main space by someone other than Cradeofcivilization. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is not true. this is what happened after a failed move review. I went against pt eilsworth and put the article in mainspace. then pt elsworth put the article back. Toadetteedit declined my article when I put submitted it in articles for creation april 4,2025. I asked her why she originally accepted the article. she simply said she made a mistake. I made a post on my talk channel setting the record straight which I did not think Toadetteedit would see. I resubmitted the draft because there was nothing that could be improved in the draft in regards to notability. it had more than enough sources which left me in a bad position. toadette sent the article that was in articles for creation to draftspace to see if it should stay on wikipedia or not. Keep in mind she may have originally approved the page. It was just a chance circumstance that after pt eilsworth sent the article back to draftspace. I happened to be up when Toadetteedit was up. cactus later renamed this article to draft then after it was vandalized nominated for miscellany for deletion. Cradleofcivilization (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Cradleofcivilization has been indef'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore National Day Parade, 2018

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016, there is no individual notability of each parade. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 16:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore National Day Parade, 2017

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore National Day Parade, 2016, there is no individual notability of each parade. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 16:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Quispe

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

Declined prod with the rather weak reason "appears to be a famous person in his country." We need significant third party coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT which is lacking here. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Bolivia. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expanded the article with lots of coverage existing in Opinion, Radio Patria Nueva, Channel 13 News, and Sistema Nacional de Radios de los Pueblos Originarios. My wording isn't great but I might come back to it later. One of these sources was already linked in the article when it was nominated, I think that part of WP:BEFORE should be to assess the sources already linked in the article at least. --Habst (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While two of the added sources are interviews which don't contribute to notability, [[19]] appears to be WP:SIGCOV as there are multiple paragraphs of coverage dedicated to the subject. Good job Habst on expanding this article. Let'srun (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the Radio Patria Nueva / Sistema Nacional de Radios de los Pueblos Originarios source, much of the coverage is the broadcaster or reporter speaking about Quispe and not Quispe himself speaking. --Habst (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per new sources added by Habst. Svartner (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the excellent work done by Habst to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blutonium Boy

AfDs for this article:

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

Blutonium is German DJ. The article was nominated for deletion in 2008 and kept based on this source, which seems notable but doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. The other sources I found are: [20], [21], [22]. This self-published book mentions him in a list of hardstyle djs. German Music Archive doesn't give anything. It feels notable but notable sources couldn't be found. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Nganaye

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

Declined prod. All the sources provided are databases or results listings and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSBASIC. Keep voters should provide actual in-depth sources and not simply invoke NEXIST. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Central African Republic. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep via WP:NEXIST. I understand the nominating statement, but per comment, "It goes against our ethics on ADL for a nominator to dictate to the community which guidlines they should not invoke in their rationale/votes".

There's a few details on this AfD that make this subject a better NEXIST candidate than most other athlete biographies. Subject qualified for the Olympics in two different events, and set three national records that still stand throughout her career. We have data from three different independently-compiled WP:RS describing a career over nine years, far longer than most other Olympians. And most importantly, the Central African Republic newspapers which would have covered the subject have not been checked because their archives are not available online:

Be Afrika: No online archive
Centrafrique Presse: Earliest online archive is from February 2008
Le Citoyen: Archive here only covers some months from 1999 and 2000, it's worth a look but is only available to CRL member institutions
Le Confident: No online archive
Le Democrate: No online archive found
E Le Songo: No online archive found
Echo de Centrafrique: No online archive found

Because the most likely avenues for coverage have not not been checked, there is a systemic bias against African countries, and the RS and WP:V info we do have is indicative of notability, a keep decision would be justified. --Habst (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there is some confirmation that the person exists in the BNF Gallica resource [23], the "athlétisme" magazine has this person listed. I don't find anything else about them. I understand bias, but we have no sources. There might not be coverage in the CAF newspaper archives; I don't want to see a bunch of stub articles left around because we're unable to verify the sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two Autumns in Paris

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasons you have just said. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Canada, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Production and screenings received a lot of coverage in Spanish...@Kingsif:, if you have time, could you have a look at this and, maybe, if it's not asking too much, the associated pages (another film, a festival and the actor mentioned above)? Thanks a lot!-Mushy Yank. 07:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage and awards/nominations, a redirect to List of Venezuelan films (listed there in 2020) would seem appropriate, at least. -Mushy Yank. 07:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a decent chance that at least this film is suitable for an article, based on a very quick search, but then looking at the articles all made by quite an obvious COI user, we may be in WP:TNT territory in terms of what content is/should be usable. I can have a better look later but am kinda swamped for a few days. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Having looked in Spanish, most sources are Venezuelan film organisations (Gran Cine, Trasnocho Cultural, government) that kinda just mention its existence. However, there's a few international sources about screenings and festivals, and the cast (Cervantes Institute, La Vanguardia). Small coverage, but RS and more than 'look we made this'. The film also got a wide cinema release in Venezuela - which would be no small feat any time after 2014, but is frankly outstanding that it happened in 2020. (El Estímulo, El Universal). Possibly the best source to start the article afresh with might be this Unión Radio piece (and interview?) about it. I don't think El Carabobeño is generally accepted as RS, but it has an article about the film being adapted from Villarroel's book, itself based on a true story, that could be useful if acceptable. Also to note, most of the awards listed on its IMDb are absolute duds, and as such the (probably quite evident anyway) Venezuelan government propaganda media, just listing off how many global awards this thing got, should be avoided. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fortis Healthcare

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like government approvals, profit/financial reporting, capacity expansion news, acquisition news, partnership news etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. WP:ATD - Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what sort of WP:BEFORE search the nominator has been conducting, but a company this large certainly receives adequate analyst coverage [24] [25] [26]. In addition, there is a plethora of significant news coverage, including extensive reporting on the controversial stake sale to IHH [27] [28]. These mass nominations need to stop–especially given that this user hasn't made any productive mainspace contributions, and has been flooding the AfD queue with dozens of nominations at a time for months now. Yuvaank (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medica Hospitals

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. Furthermore, the WP:BEFORE check has failed. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Manipal Hospitals. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe some sources exist, given the scope of work and a big number of branches it has. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah

AfDs for this article:

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

Was soft-deleted through AfD last year, and then restored after the soft delete was contested. No improvements were made to the article, and the original nom's rationale, "Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either." still holds true. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Pakistan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there is some coverage on Google Scholar, linking some of them here: [29], [30], [31], [32]. Gheus (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The above Radiotherapy Institute is essentially a 'Cancer Hospital' in Nawabshah, Sindh, Pakistan. Has at least 3 working newspaper references from major newspapers of Pakistan in addition to what User:Gheus found shown above here....Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I appreciate the input of the above two editors, the coverage in Google Scholar mentioned above, rises to neither the level of WP:GNG or... wait, this isn't a question of WP:NACADEMIC, so the fact that they get mentioned occassionally does not pass GNG. And the second "Keep" !vote above does not list the articles in which it is referenced, so it is impossible to ascertain whether or not they are in-depth coverage.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fully understand the confusion of the nominator about the Pakistani newspaper names. Hope, all of us realize that they are editing and writing for worldwide readers on Wikipedia. I tried to make the Pakistani newspaper names clear for all readers and removed some dead links...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP. So far there has been no evidence present to show the organisation is notable, so it must be a delete as the article refs doesn't support notability. The refs presented above are invalid scope_creep^Talk 12:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brightcom Group

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep due to the fact that it does have some coverage. However, some parts are cited to primary sources, so they may have to be removed. ^Wiinter_U 13:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Pelmear

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

No evidence of notability found. Played in notable series like Dr Who, but only a minor role. He is just a name appearing in lists of actors, but doesn't get further attention in books[33]. No news sources paid significant attention to his death[34]. General Google results are wiki's and fora, no indepth reliable sources there either[35]. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are people less notable than him who have an article. So, I don't see why this article should be deleted. And besides, it can be improved over time. Spectritus (talk) 9:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Fram (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His role in The Time Warrior is significant, not minor. Merge into a not-yet existing cast section of that serial. Thanks. (https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-guide/the-time-warrior/) -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He played in 4 of the 26 episodes of one season of this long-running series. It's a significant role in that one story arc, it is a minor role in Doctor Who. Fram (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sure, it's also less important in the universal history of fiction than Rhett Butler and Darth Vader, which in turn are less important than Odyssseus and Don Quixote, etc, but that's not really the point.... It's a significant [not minor] role in a notable production and that's why I suggest to Redirect the page there. If other significant ro|es in notable productions are identified, the Redirect can be undone and the page expanded back into a proper article. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I said before, there are people less notable than him who have an article. So, there's no reason to delete this one. Spectritus (talk) 8:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment He also appeared in many roles on stage. I'll try to add info about that, and sources from digitised newspapers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Much appreciated. Spectritus (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio in the Flemish Community

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Netherlands. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This type of article is very common. To link a few: Radio in France, Radio in Germany, Radio in Austria and Radio in the Republic of Ireland. Concerning the notability of the Flemish Community: since Belgium is roughly split into two language regions, each region has its own set of radio stations. AllOriginalBubs (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AllOriginalBubs, the examples are from primary level national units. Do you claim that this level should be skipped in Belgium? gidonb (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mass media in Belgium#Radio as an ATD for an unjustified spinoff. Not sure that any of the information is missing there yet access and history would be preserved. gidonb (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search of Google Books shows the following English-language sources: Who Owns the World's Media? Media Concentration and Ownership Around the World (Oxford University Press) [36], pages 42-43; Media Compass: A Companion to International Media Landscapes (Wiley) [37], pages 22-23; The Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook (SAGE Publications) [38], pages 21-23. I'm sure there's more, in English and in other languages. If there were an article on Radio in Belgium, equivalent to Television in Belgium, it might be appropriate to merge this article there - but I don't think that merging or redirecting to Mass media in Belgium, which covers radio, tv, press, would be appropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omaxe

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. WP:BEFORE is all about new project launches, funding news, winning government contracts., etc - all are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camera, hand lens, and microscope probe

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Technology, and Spaceflight. Anerdw (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all conference papers, as far as I can find. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if its all conference papers honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simbi Phiri

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

Not meeting general notability; the person is not yet notable, read slightly like prom with trivial mentions in press. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Domani

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

not notable actress, not meeting WP:ACTOR, Anybio. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ahmed (businessman)

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

the sources are dependent and only one has something similar to deep coverage, but the sources itself is not reliable and independent (this one Ethiopian birthday) other are WP:Trades and nothing similar to significant coverage OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual is known for the success of Africa's largest airlines. According to Fana Broadcasting Corporate "The late Captain Mohammed Ahmed, a pioneering force in the aviation industry and a cherished leader of Ethiopian Airlines" [39]Magherbin (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the above keep !votes, it does not meet WP:NLIST. Orientls (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims made by @Mushy Yank An editor from Mars (talk) 06:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What claims? How do you get around the fact that there isn't a single source in this list, and it's complete OR? Or that there's no sourcing to demonstrate this as some kind of notable grouping? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:ATD. Articles need WP:SIGCOV, and claims only go so far. In terms of navigation, links already exist at the main Flashpoint (comics) article, and we could even add them to the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The list has no sources included that are not just the comics themselves, and none of the keep votes have offered a valid argument for how this passes WP:LISTN. Any notability for the Flashpoint (comics) series itself does not automatically extend to justify listing a multitude of minor characters that have no reliable sources that actually discuss them in any meaningful way. The few characters that were central to the plot of the comic are already described at the main article's plot summary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a list, don't think meets WP:NLIST. And I see that many Categories exists around these characters, which is good enough for grouping. Asteramellus (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betiton

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

Refences in this article are made up of press releases, primary sources and marketing copies distributed to other websites. Check well and you find nothing solid and credible per WP:NCORP. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Malta. CPDJay (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns about sourcing and notability. While some of the current sources are not ideal, I believe the subject is not far away from Wikipedia’s notability standards and can be improved rather than deleted. That said considering that the brand is acknowledged with several awards from SiGMA and SBC, covered on their official websites, and testifying that it is notable for its industry.

The article cites different sources, even though some of the current references may not be ideal, but I am working on researching and adding better sources to strengthen the article. Victoria Gregor (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inamorata (Metallica song)

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

WP:NSONG clearly states the following: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label [...] 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. This song unfortunately falls under the latter category.

I have done a great deal of research on this song and the album in general (as I plan to one day get 72 Seasons to GA), and I have come to the conclusion that Inamorata is not notable outside of 72 Seasons. All coverage of the song in reliable, secondary sources can basically be summarized to the following: "Metallica just released their longest song ever, go check it out!" or "Metallica just played their longest song ever live for the first time, go check out the VOD!", without offering any actual significant coverage or critical commentary towards the song itself. Instead, pretty much anything that actually has anything to say about the song is in the context of album reviews, which don't demonstrate notability; every opinion currently in the reception section is cited to album reviews except for one article that is mostly just demonstrating fan responses to the song. But obviously, fan opinions aren't useful here. The only thing that the song actually has going for it was charting in one lower-level, genre-specific chart in a singular region. However, every song from 72 Seasons also charted on that chart at the same time before each song quickly fell off shortly afterwards. Plus, NSONG clearly states that charting doesn't automatically make a song notable and has to be combined with sufficient coverage in other sources, which this song does not have, so that should be discarded. Hell, there's not even any "best songs of 2023" rankings or "Best Metallica song" rankings out there that cover Inamorata, and I'm usually an advocate for rankings being able to provide significant-coverage depending on how much meat the ranking has in regards to covering the song. But again, Inamorata has nothing on that front.

TL;DR: As a result of the lack of critical commentary and coverage beyond album reviews and run-of-the-mill coverage, Inamorata fails NSONG, and anything that can be said about the song can be easily summarized in the article for 72 Seasons, which this should be redirected to. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 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)} 16:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNG and NSONG are based on the available sources, not just the sources currently in the article. And Inamorata is covered in at least 2 books that I could find - Metallica: The Stories Behind the Songs and Metallica All the Songs, with the latter in particular providing an extensive discussion of the song and its origin and production. Further, the Loudwire source linked in the article is not UGC - it has some discussion of the song including a Loudwire critic's review of the song before it then provides quotes from fans (that Loudwire selected). Further, Loudwire also published another article about the song here, so combining these 2 articles I would say that Loudwire is a significant independent source. So in my opinion the song meets GNG and NSONG. Rlendog (talk)
Tentative Keep A cursory look at the sources listed show, in titles alone, that they are about the song and not only the album. Could revise if it is shown that many of those sources are not RS on their own (are there as helper sources, etc.). Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I think the band long ago jumped the shark, but this song has has gotten plenty of coverage and the disgusting video has gotten a large amount of plays. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What issues do you have with the sources that have been identified after the nom? Rlendog (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSoulTruthFan, the nom did not argue for deletion. -- asilvering (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant redirect, sorry. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album, 72 Seasons. I would not call the coverage currently in the article, or the Loudwire sources identified in this discussion, "significant". Metallica All the Songs contains coverage of every single Metallica song; if that's our biggest source, I don't think we have enough for an independent article. However, since we have some coverage, and an obvious redirect target, we shouldn't be deleting this. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 2,3 and 5 are about the song and listed as RS. Also has some critical reviews and has charted, showing notability requirements here. Looks ok. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems okay, I would like to see a few more sources and expanded prose, but for what's there I have nothing against the article. Govvy (talk) 08:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Floyd (diplomat)

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

The person is not holding any notable office nor has multiple significant reliable coverage in third-party media Norlk (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for your comment. The person is a politician holding the office of head of a notable international organization, which is an international office. Under the notability guidelines, "Politicians...who have held international.. office" are presumed to be notable. Further, all other heads of international organizations based in Vienna are considered notable and have dedicated articles, many with similar or lower levels of coverage in third-party media. Your feedback on the level of coverage is noted, and a further five third-party media sources have been added to the article based on your feedback to demonstrate significant reliable coverage.

Ffe9 (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he is not a politician. He has held no elected political office, nor is he known to be a member of any political party. Per the sources, he worked as was as a bureaucrat in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (Australia), which may be where the confusion arises. However this is not a political appointment. Dfadden (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article sources, while he was not a politician in Australia he was elected to his position as Executive Secretary, which is a political office at an international organization. Further, his candidacy was put forward by the Australian Government, as a political appointment. Ffe9 (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is indeed a little different. It seems the links for diplomats, by the very nature of their wok, are not necessarily found in the usual news items, etc. For instance: Diplomats Gather in Annecy France for NPT Workshop. Before you dismiss him as just a diplomat, you might want to read his article Career section. — Maile (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Executive Secretary of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization is most certainly a notable office! I do concede that the coverage has all come after he assumed this position, with a news spike in mid 2021. A case could be made for WP:ONEEVENT, however noting the sufficient WP:DEPTH provided particular by the Sydney Morning Herald article and articles from 2023 showing some ongoing interest, I feel he is sufficently notable for an article. Dfadden (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Publications from his past life as a research scientist can be found under "Robert B. Floyd" [40], I think (at least they are in ecology by a Robert Floyd at CSIRO). They are well cited for the topic but I think do not contribute to WP:PROF notability; it is through his nuclear non-proliferation work that we must seek notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borealis (software company)

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

The organisation is not meeting GNG and NCORP as it has only dependent media links and press-releases Norlk (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitpur Mayor Women's Cup

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than ROUTINE coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV, thus fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 12:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vaniya Agrawal

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

I don't see it, I don't see how this passes WP:GNG, feels WP:ROUTINE. I just don't see anything special here. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. An otherwise non-notable individual, based on a reasonable BEFORE. The event itself doesn't meet any criteria of NEVENT. BusterD (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: temporary news WP:NOTNEWS just routine coverage as noted in nom Asteramellus (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Bar (2024 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Promo for non notable film. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No sign of any reviews. Being screened at minor festivals and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. One of multiple promo pieces for Francisco Villarroel and his creations made by the same spammer. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tango Bar (2021 film). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely this is a hoax article. As the AFD discussion @Duffbeerforme linked above, it had a deletion back in 2021 but with has been put back up only with 2024 replacing the 2021 in it's title. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think IMDB got fooled by this article. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was in production in 2021 and finally got released in 2024 which explains the two different dates. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see in Spanish, given the coverage and awards/nominations, I consider a redirect (and merge) to List of Venezuelan films#2020s would seem appropriate, at least.-Mushy Yank. 07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep César Bolívar working on it, distribution by Gran Cine, and winning an award at ELCO, probably places it as one of the bigger Venezuelan films of the last few years, especially among internal productions. I can look for more sources but, besides the COI, there doesn't seem to be a reason to delete. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NewsBreak

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

NewsBreak is not nearly notable enough for a Wikipedia page, they do not have enough articles/news information about them to even expand the page further than it is now. There is nothing SIGNIFICANT about this; per Wikipedia guidelines for Notability, to determine if a topic merits its own article, it requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not self-published or promotional. And so far, this article is WP:UNDUE, ONE Rueters article covers an entire paragraph. No notability. OhNoKaren (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsBreak Justi yaya 02:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Comment there is an additional source on the talk and possible coverage in Chinese sources (like [41]) though they're frequently not loading and I'm not familiar with them to comment on their reliability. Justi yaya 02:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't you see? That article literally has local in it's opening paragraph! Well, I mean... You can see that. Everyone with vision can see that. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by how big of an area a news organization covers. We have hundreds of articles on daily newspapers that publish local news. Iiii I I I (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I found several secondary sources that span a good period after a brief search:

Digiday (October 4, 2021), "Inside Newsbreak’s search for stability in its nearly year-old creators program".
Business Insider (January 31, 2022), "Former NBC 'Today' chief Jim Bell will join local news app startup NewsBreak to set strategy, hire journalists".
NBC News (March 20, 2024), "Crime stories drove readers to GoFundMe campaigns, only the victims didn't exist".
The Wrap (December 18, 2024), "Steve Harvey Death Rumor Sparked by Bogus AI Story".

Plus Chinese-language articles from secondary sources:

The Paper (May 28, 2020), "沈向洋下一站确定：投资并出任News break董事长"
21st Century Business Herald (February 8, 2021), "News Break突围，海外“今日头条”们能否迎来第二春？"
Radio France Internationale (June 6, 2024), "美国新闻应用程式以AI写假新闻？演算法办公室在中国"
Voice of America (June 11, 2024), "又一个TikTok? 美议员担心新闻应用程序NewsBreak的中国背景，呼吁进行严格审查"

Plus many reliable sources covering Reuters' June 5, 2024 article, which shows newsworthiness:

Ars Technica, "Top news app caught sharing “entirely false” AI-generated news"
Engadget, "Popular US news app accused of using AI to make up fake stories"
Entrepreneur, "The Most Downloaded News App in the U.S. May Have Published Dozens of Fake, AI-Written Stories"
Futurism, "Popular News App Caught Publishing Completely Untrue AI Articles"

I don't see a problem with that paragraph citing just one source, considering 1) the source is Reuters, which is reliable, and 2) the article in question is an in-depth, long-form investigative piece. Iiii I I I (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your detailed research, Iiii I I I (talk · contribs). The sources you found show that NewsBreak passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 10:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It's a company that doesn't seem to promote itself but there's information to be found. tedder (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P-6 (mountain lion)

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

No indication why this would be a notable animal. There doesn't seem to be an article about the group it belongs to, so I see no good redirect target either. Fram (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and California. Fram (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be just a named animal, sourced mostly to the National Park Service in the USA. Dying isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I understand the position that not all animals tracked in this study are notable, and I would say this one is a borderline case. The main notability involves the inbreeding with her father, which was reported on by several notable sources and is directly responsible for construction of the Wallis Annenberg Wildlife Crossing, something I probably should have included in the article from the beginning.

I don't plan on making pages for every animal in the study, only the notable ones. If P-6 is to be on the non-notable side of the notable/non-notable dividing line, I will adjust my page-making decisions for this topic going forward. Additionally, if P-6 is to be considered not-notable, then P-2 should probably be considered not notable as well. However, I would strongly object to P-1, P-12, and P-64 being considered not notable. Gb321 (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think Mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains or similar could be an appropriate way to cover not only the at least six mountain lions that have articles but also others that have been tracked and received coverage but don't have enough content for an article. Reywas92^Talk 17:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a good idea. I'll work on it. Gb321 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide more reliable sourcing, that would be a good option to !deletion Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

see: Mountain_lions_in_the_Santa_Monica_Mountains Gb321 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Hospitality Management Education

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

Not notable organisation Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per total lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galaksia Praha 23

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

Self-promotion of an amateur club, without coverage by independent sources. The only sources cited are the club and amateur league websites, Facebook, and a promotional article by the advertising agency Prague Morning. FromCzech (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I would have moved this to draft space instead of AfD, some news coverage, but it feels somewhat routine. Govvy (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see much room for improvement, but if there is a consensus for the draft... FromCzech (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Falls in WP:PROMO. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ElderTreks

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

The company is not notable per WP:NORG. I have done a WP:BEFORE and found no sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Canada. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. The only sources I have found are articles on travel for older people that mention eldertreks as an option. No in-depth, significant coverage of the company

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree with you, the nominator. Also, per the reasons @Anonrfjwhuikdzz has said above. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Zero secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. Could not find anything. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Vigolo, Vania (2017). "ElderTreks—Small-Group Exotic Adventures for the Over 50". Older Tourist Behavior and Marketing Tools. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 130–136. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47735-0. ISBN 978-3-319-47734-3. ISSN 2510-4993. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "ElderTreks is an adventure travel company designed exclusively for individuals aged 50 and over. It is based in Toronto, Canada, and was established in 1987 by Gary Murtagh. ElderTreks offers trips in over 100 countries and includes destinations in Africa, the Americas, the Asia-Pacific Region, Europe, the Middle East, and the Polar regions. Some of the travel proposals include, for example, wildlife and tribal African safaris, active hiking trips to the Rockies, Himalayas and Andes expeditions by icebreakers to the Arctic and Antarctic, and cultural journeys throughout Asia and South America. ElderTreks proposes small group experiences. For example, the maximum group size for land adventures is 16, and expedition ships rather than cruise ships are used for ship-based adventures. Smaller vessels allow for more personal interaction and reduce the impact at the sites visited. Before the establishment of ElderTreks, Gary Murtagh was running trips all over the world to exotic destinations and he realized that there was not a specific adventure travel company targeting the 50-plus market."
2. Kruempelmann, Elizabeth (2002). The Global Citizen: A Guide to Creating an International Life and Career. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. p. 114. ISBN 1-58008-352-8. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Eldertreks is the world’s first adventure travel company for people over fifty. The goal of the program is to promote genuine, noncommercial encounters with local people and nature’s wonders. Locations include thirty-one destinations worldwide. ... All of Eldertreks’ trips involve some walking, in groups of fifteen people or less. You can choose a trip with activity ratings from easy to challenging, but you should be in fairly good shape. Accommodation levels are mostly mid-range hotels and high-end guest houses and inns — all charming, comfortable, and safe. Restaurants range from small, local eateries to elegant retreats."
3. Warren, Isobel (1993). On the Go at 50 Plus. Toronto: Cedar Cave Publishing. pp. 93–94. ISBN 0-920403-06-9. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "One company that’s specializes in adventure travel for mature adults is ElderTreks and president Tov Mason, a mere lad of 33 but already a specialist in adventure trips for younger travellers, is fast becoming expert at creating adventures for their mature counterparts. ElderTreks, often led by Mason himself, have so far included trips to Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Borneo, the Galapagos Islands, Java and Sumatra, Belize, Costa Rica and Ecuador. But any one tour may accommodate travellers of differing physical abilities. For example, a recent jaunt to Indonesia saw about half of the group explore a gentle countryside at an equally gentle pace while the remainder of the group tackled dense jungles on foot and by canoe and spent the night in a native village."
4. Hobbs, Pam; Algar, Michael (1994). Free to Travel: A Canadian Guide for the 50-Plus Travellers. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. p. 162. ISBN 0-385-25479-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "ElderTreks of Toronto has the right idea with their “exotic adventures for the young at heart” tailored to fit 50 plus travellers. An example is their 21-day tour in Thailand: sightseeing in Bangkok and surrounds is followed by an overnight train ride to Chang Mai, with the week there highlighted by a bicycle trip into the countryside. From Chang Mai the group divides; some choose to go to the far north for three days; others opt to stay with the people living in the hills. The latter entails an elephant trek through the jungle and overnighting on bamboo floors of village houses. An experience of a lifetime for sure, but not for everyone, which is exactly why ElderTreks offers a less demanding alternative in the Golden Triangle. "
5. Hegle, Kris Ann (2000). The Internet Made Easy for Seniors. Lincolnwood, Illinois: Publications International. pp. 122–123. ISBN 0-7853-4568-X. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "EIderTreks' Web site contains a lot of good information about trips geared a specifically toward the 50-or-older traveler. This company specializes in adventure travel. In other words, the trips you'll find at this site aren't designed for people who like to be pampered while on vacation. On Elder Treks' home page you'll see a post filled with signs to destinations such as Central Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, and Asia Minor and the Middle East. If you click on a sign destination, you'll link to a Web page that describes all of the trips that are currently offered in that region. You'll also find information about the cost, the length of stay, and where travelers will arrive and depart on each trip. Some trips give travelers the option of extending their stay."
6. Heilman, Joan Rattner (1996) [1988]. Unbelievably Good Deals and Great Adventures That You Absolutely Can't Get Unless You're Over 50. Chicago: Contemporary Books. pp. 47–48. ISBN 0-8092-3233-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Not designed for those who prefer to view the world through bus windows or will sleep in five-star hotels only, ElderTreks is a program of off-the-beaten-track trips for people 50 and older (and younger companions) who are in reasonably good physical condition, capable of walking at a comfortable pace in tropical conditions. Featuring exotic adventures to relatively remote places in the world, it stresses cultural interaction, physical activity, and nature exploration. However, trekking routes are chosen with older hikers in mind and groups are limited to 15. Trekking portions of the trips are optional and you may choose to substitute a guesthouse-based itinerary."
7. Merz Nordstrom, Nancy; Merz, Jon F. (2006). Learning Later-Living Greater: The Three Secrets for Making the Most of Your "After-50" Years. Boulder, Colorado: First Sentient Publications. pp. 170–171. ISBN 978-1-59181-047-6. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Nineteen-year-old ElderTreks is the world's first adventure travel company designed exclusively for people fifty and over; it provides exciting small-group activities on the land and sea in more than eighty countries. Excursions focus on adventure, indigenous cultures, and nature. Check out the wildlife in Tanzania, scour the Gobi Desert in Mongolia on a camel, witness the awesome spectacles of Angkor Wat in Thailand, and even visit the seventh continent of Antarctica. All of these adventures and more are possible when you travel with ElderTreks."
8. Kaye, Evelyn (2001). Travel and Learn: 1001 Vacations Around the World. Boulder, Colorado: Blue Panda Publications. pp. 112–113. ISBN 1-929315-01-5. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Designed for adventure travelers of 50 and over, Eldertreks offers hiking and other active trips to dozens of exotic locations including Cuba, Morocco, Kenya, Tibet, Hungary, Turkey, India, Borneo, Vietnam, Brazil, Costa Rica, Iceland, Finland, and New Zealand."
9. Shapiro, Michael (1997). Pizzo, Stephen (ed.). NetTravel: How Travelers Use the Internet. Sebastapol, California: Songline Studios and O'Reilly & Associates. p. 127. ISBN 1-56592-172-0. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Another site aimed at seniors is Toronto-based ElderTreks (http://www.eldertreks.com/), which specializes in adventures for people over 50. Travelers can use the site to learn about ElderTreks’ philosophy and tours. A link leads to information about ElderTreks’ tour leaders, which can help seniors feel more comfortable about the trip they are considering. ElderTreks uses the Net well to give a description of each trip, for example, a 16-day tour of Turkey. The description includes text, images, a map, a detailed itinerary, cost, and departure dates. If travelers still have questions about any tour, they can click ..."
10. Vadnai, Noah; Smith, Julian (2000). Travel Planning Online for Dummies (2 ed.). Foster City, California: IDG Books. p. 58. ISBN 0-7645-0672-2. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "ElderTreks (www.eldertreks. com) is a Toronto-based travel agency that specializes in designing active vacations for people over 50. The site is extremely well designed and provides you with tons of tantalizing information about the trips they offer. Hiking in the Gobi Desert? Journeying through Irian Java? A far cry from shuffleboard aboard the Pacific Princess — that's the point."
11. Landes, Michael (2000). The Back Door Guide to Short-Term Job Adventures. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. pp. 237–238. ISBN 1-58008-147-9. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Assuring "exotic adventures for the young at heart," ElderTreks offers off-the-beaten-path cultural experiences to destinations such as Sumatra, Bali, Thailand, and Morocco. The two to three-week trips are geared for travelers who want to really explore and experience a country, from strolling through street markets and cycling through a tropical countryside to the human encounter of sharing dinner with a local family in their home. Nature is a key element to all itineries."
12. Tsutsumi, Cheryl Chee (2006-09-28). "Exploring the wild side: Toronto-based ElderTreks offers more than five dozen exotic trips for the active older traveler" (pages 1 and 2). Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-04-06. Retrieved 2025-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Passages Exotic Expeditions, ElderTreks' parent company, was founded in 1987 *when adventure travel was just in its infancy," according to sales manager Christine Bossence. After five years of catering to all ages, executives noticed there was a big demand from mature travelers seeking active vacations in far-flung destinations without hassles such as arranging for local transportation and accommodations on the spot. Thus, Elder Treks was born as a division of Passages Exotic Expeditions in 1992. It now offers over five dozen adventures in 90 countries, including Libya, Morocco, Madagascar, Hungary/Roma-nia, Sri Lanka, India, Myan-mar, Borneo and Bhutan. Available next year are new programs to Malta, Egypt, Iceland, Papua New Guinea, Belize/Tikal and the Czech Republic/Slovakia/Poland."
13. Catto, Susan (2002-12-15). "Practical Traveler; Older Travelers Hit the Road". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2011-02-15. Retrieved 2025-04-06.
  The article notes: "Now in its 17th year, ElderTreks offers land and marine adventures on five continents. Tours are limited to 16 people (some of the boat trips are larger or smaller). [quote] The 21-day Cultural West Africa trip loops through Mali and Burkina Faso, with a safari on the Niger River and a trip to Timbuktu"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow ElderTreks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though these are reliable sources, most of them read like they are merely mentioning the company and its product listings, i.e. adventure travel for 50+ adults. There is not much in the way of commentary here, and to me these read more as examples of WP:OrgTRIV rather than WP:SUBSTANTIAL. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this assessment of the sources. ElderTreks is profiled on pages 130–136 of the academic book Older Tourist Behavior and Marketing Tools published by Springer International Publishing. As this book review from the Journal of the Association for Anthropology & Gerontology notes:

In the third part, the researcher discusses so-called case studies illustrating various strategies adopted in the tourism industry, on the basis of specific examples. The subject of the analysis comprised three tourism firms: (I) Viaggi Floreali (Slovenia), specialising in tourism for small groups of seniors; (II) ElderTreks (Canada), specialising in tourism for individual seniors; (III) Algarve Senior Living (Great Britain), specialising in the rental of tourist facilities. The qualitative research carried out by Vigolo is based on the following methodology: (1) determination of how the company began to target older people; (2) description of the target and its characteristics; (3) description of the company’s distinctive elements; (4) description of the marketing mix (product, price, place, and promotion strategies); (5) analysis of the market context, with a focus on active aging and on challenges for the tourism industry (Vigolo 2017, 129).

Kruempelmann 2002 provides 277 words of coverage about how the company's travel itineraries work. Isobel Warren's book provides 208 words of coverage. Pam Hobbs's book provides 282 words of coverage. The books provides the authors' commentary about what they think about the company's travel itineraries. None of these sources are trivial coverage. The sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage, which says, "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." Cunard (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: changed my vote to keep per Cunard's commentary, thank you for this explanation. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sandor

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, with no roles of any particular note. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Bonnie's Kids, The No Mercy Man, Stryker (1983 film), Hell's Angels '69, Fire and Ice (1983 film) and The Only Way Home (Coverage here, here and here). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also passes GNG through coverage here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Other than Fire and Ice (for which he provided his voice), the films are obscure and seen by few. One one of the examples of "coverage" is viewable, and that one doesn't even mention him. The rest are paywalled, and I strongly suspect are merely passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of the sources listed for GNG discusses Sandor's career so I don't know which one you're talking about. If you're talking about the book, that one was listed to prove that The Only Way Home is notable and that Sandor's role in it is significant, and the sources actually does talk about Sandor. That the films are "obscure and seen by few" is complerely and utterly irrelevant for NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P-12 (mountain lion)

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable animal, just one of a group which gets closely followed, but not independently notable. We don't seem to have an article about the group, which might be the better solution than articles for all individuals in the group. Fram (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and California. Fram (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the position that not all animals tracked in this study are notable, but P-12 definitely is. Multiple articles from reliable sources establish its notability, and there are lots more articles that the ones that are cited. P-12 was literally credited with a genetic rescue by the National Park Service. That seems very notable to me (the genetic rescue wikipedia page only has three examples in total, I'm about to add this one which would be the fourth Gb321 (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: meant to put this in my previous response.

Also, in the nomination for deletion, the nominator notes that it might be better to make an article for the group rather than individual articles. I am all for that, I just don't know what to call it since the study itself doesn't seem to have a name. I was thinking of creating a page titled: Santa Monica Mountains mountain lion study or Mountain lion study in the Santa Monica Mountains but I'm not sure. But even with this page made, I do maintain that some individual animals are deserving of their own page, P-22 obviously is but I think at the very least the following are as well: P-1, P-12, P-64, BB-12, and probably a couple others I haven't got to yet Gb321 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think Mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains or similar could be an appropriate way to cover not only the at least six mountain lions that have articles but also others that have been tracked and received coverage but don't have enough content for an article. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see: Mountain_lions_in_the_Santa_Monica_Mountains Gb321 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mountain lions in the Santa Monica Mountains. Does not have any coverage focusing on him as an individual as opposed to the community. Better covered as part of the population article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American & Canadian Truck Manufacturers

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

Completely unsourced list which fails WP:NLIST and appears to consist entirely of original research. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Lists, Canada, and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The author tried it in draft space already; see the history of User:PeterbiltDude/sandbox. Of course we have this content already, as I pointed out, at List of truck manufacturers and other articles. I don't know why they removed the comment, reinstated the poorly formatted list, AND put it up in main space in this rather terrifying condition. Drmies (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This list is entirely redundant given List of American truck manufacturers exists already. Plus it looks like the "sources" were linking to other Wiki pages based on page history.Waluigithewalrus (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Waluigithewalrus if you think im trying to copy the other pages I'm not. American & Canadian truck manufactures is supposed to be a better list since the other ones have alot of mistakes. I would try to fix them but that would be considered vandalizing. I hope we can talk about what to do to make my page better so it won't get deleted, also just letting you both know I'm new to this editing thing so I am always accepting of any help that you guys might offer.

Kindest Regards,

PeterbiltDude PeterbiltDude (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe there are mistakes, there need to be reliable external sources (see WP:RS for what qualifies at reliable) that corroborate the information you are changing. Doing a mass change of information with no sources will frequently be considered vandalism. Your sources on your page include a truck resale website and two already existing Wikipedia pages, neither of which can be used as sources. Waluigithewalrus (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CycloneYoris, there was a list for sources/references. However for some reason it got deleted. I have re-added it. PeterbiltDude (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: images uploaded as "own work" clearly are not. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN. The references are circular. 2 are just to other articles and the other one is to the search function for a website to buy and sell used trucks. The page creator has now had several issues that bring up WP:CIR concerns. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hee-soo

AfDs for this article:

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

I have conducted a WP:BEFORE search to assess the notability of this article. I searched in Google, Naver News, and English-language Korean news sources including The Korea Herald, Yonhap News, and KBS World using both English ("Cho Hee-soo rhythmic gymnast") and Korean ("조희수 리듬체조") keywords.

The only results available are routine coverage from sports result listings and minor announcements in domestic outlets. There are no significant independent sources that offer in-depth coverage or analysis of the subject.

According to WP:NSPORTS (Wikipedia:Notability for sportspeople), an athlete is presumed notable if they have "received significant coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Cho Hee-soo has not met this threshold. The article does not demonstrate lasting impact or significant coverage beyond simple event participation.

Therefore, I believe this article does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG) nor the specific guideline for athletes (WP:NSPORTS) and should be deleted. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and Korea. Jeong seolah (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I Can't Find My Love

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

Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to prove its notability. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an article from Oricon stating that the first episode had a 17% nationwide viewership. Mantan Web reports that its final episode had an 18.4% nationwide viewership. It seems to have been highly viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: they're not nationwide viewerships, but overall viewerships in the Kanto region of Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Lullabying, which seem to provide notability for the minimum WP:BASIC criteria. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jive PR+Digital

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All but the final two sources are passing mentions, and the final two are from Instagram/Linkedin. Found nothing useful after a search online. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This should be a good candidate of CSD because there is not a single source in the article that count for notability and nothing out there to qualify WP:NCORP. Mekomo (talk) 06:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I agree, this fails WP:NCORP, plus it also gives off some promotional vibes (at least to me).

RedactedHumanoid (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaldoun Sweis

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

The subject does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC in spite of years of opportunity to do so. It seems kind of a strech for an associate professor to be notable. There are name-drops about who interviewed him, and a list of his publications, but that doesn't confer notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely needs cleanup to remove the promotional material for his self-developed coaching method and his self-published CreateSpace book. Not notable as an academic, but he passes WP:NAUTHOR as the co-editor of Debating Christian Theism, which has received multiple reviews in independent sources, including International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, The Journal of Theological Studies, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Philos, Theological Studies; and co-editor of Christian Apologetics, which has also received multiple independent reviews in the Heythrop Journal and the Southeastern Theological Review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Lean Keep) -- Definitely in the scope of "Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable" based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, plus one additional high prestige article. This in itself is borderline for WP:PROF -- it seems on the face of it enough for WP:AUTHOR, but these publications are not what that guideline was primarily meant to evaluate. My hunch is what Dclemens1971 was able to find will turn into more and will be a keep, but based on what I quickly found and what's here, I'm neutral. But it's definitely not an easy del. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, not an easy delete. I may withdraw this nomination, seeing how it pans out. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"'Some people who are clearly notable think that he's notable' based on the co-editorship of the OUP volume, ..." I don't think that follows at all. J.P. Moreland is the "name" author on the Oxford anthology, the other authors don't have to be notable for Oxford to be willing to publish it. Jahaza (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. he's third editor on the Oxford anthology, doesn't have an essay in the book himself, and the introduction is not a substantial piece of scholarship, it's only a page and a half long. The Zondervan anthology is a little better, but absent evidence of widespread adoption of the book as a textbook, I don't think he meets WP:NACADEMIC. I don't feel that it really meets WP:AUTHOR, he's only a part of the team compiling anthologies, not creating new works in his field. Jahaza (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three accreditations I got from Dr. Khaldoun Sweis himself. I am positive links can be arranged.

"Dr. Sweis and I had a chance to work together on a project in Chicago’s South Loop neighborhood. The goal was to engage highly skeptical people in honest intellectual conversations around some of the deepest challenges to the Christian faith. Dr. Sweis spoke on the topic of ‘If there is a God, why is there so much evil.’ The conversation he led was spot on. His style of lecture was both hard hitting and emotionally powerful. He spoke from his heart and that came out in his passion on almost every point. But he also managed to make the highly intellectual and philosophical topics of his discussion accessible to everyone in the room. Beyond his ability to communicate, he was also a blessing to work with from the very beginning. I’m hopeful to work with Dr. Sweis many times in the future."

-Raef Chenery, South Loop Campus Pastor, Park Community Church

"Khaldoun Sweis is a solid Christian scholar with integrity and deep commitment to Jesus and His Kingdom. He has taught at a secular college for some time now, and he has remained faithful and learned a lot about how to talk to unbelievers. He is a respected teacher and speaker with passion and enthusiasm for his topic and the care of his audience. I was privileged to co-edit a book with Khaldoun that came out a few years ago with Oxford University Press. I recommend him as a speaker and friend of your ministry.– JP Moreland, Ph.D. JP Moreland Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology at Biola University in La Mirada, California Moreland was selected in 2016 by The Best Schools as one of the 50 most influential living philosophers. He has authored, edited, or contributed papers to ninety-five books, including Does God Exist? (Prometheus), The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, Debating Christian Theism (Oxford.) He has also published close to 90 articles in journals"

“It has been a privilege to know Khaldoun Sweis over the years. I am pleased to recommend him as a speaker and scholar who communicates with insight, honesty, and clarity about the reasonableness and relevance of the Christian faith in the marketplace of ideas.”

Paul Copan

Paul Copan is a Christian theologian, analytic philosopher, apologist, and author. He is currently a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University and holds the endowed Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics. AudunNilsenOslo (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these testimonials (which look like book blurbs) are published anywhere, then they can be used. Otherwise it's no better than primary sourcing if Sweis is the only source. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per their talk page[42], @AudunNilsenOslo is an employee of Khaldoun Sweis. --Jahaza (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your claim about being a third editor, WP:NAUTHOR encompasses book editors: This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if...The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). (Emphasis added.) Co-editing two books that have received multiple independent periodical reviews counts toward WP:NAUTHOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, I don't think that's likely to be the intent of that guideline. Editing an academic compilation is very different from the kind of work people tend to think of when they say "editor". It's not like editing, say, a new edition of Chaucer, or publishing a historical text for the first time, or being "so-and-so's editor". I might consider it for WP:NPROF if the edition was something like a Norton Anthology - but that kind of academic is almost certainly already notable for other things (that's why they're editing the Norton). -- asilvering (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked many years ago in academic publishing (unrelated to this person's area of expertise), I would respectfully disagree; co-editors do a lot of work in selecting, editing and preparing anthologies -- but I understand others may not read NAUTHOR the same way I do here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anachronist and Jahaza. Does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Aliro

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

This article is massively incomplete and poorly formed and needs to be draftified, at the very least. I also was not able to find any meaningful WP:SIGCOV on this player beyond transfer notices and similar sources. Anwegmann (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kwikiriza Shafik Nana

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player, not to mention the fact that the article is terrible, which is neither here nor there. Anwegmann (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aquapel (glass treatment)

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

There is no substantial RS coverage on the topic. There is nothing to indicate they are relevant. The page was created by an editor who is creating many promotional pages for related product. Iban14mxl (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let this ride cause it's a terrible article, but this nomination? Who is the "they" in the second sentence? What editor--this is 16 years old. What are "related figures"? This is not a "figure", it's a product. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can only find the term used in places that replace windshields, nothing else beyond promotional use of the phrase. PROMO applies Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Anandpur (1703)

AfDs for this article:

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

There is fundamentally no WP:SIGCOV about this battle. The sources that mention it say that it occurred and what its result was, but there's essentially no more information than that. Much of the coverage uncovered at previous AfDs is either unreliable, or relates to different battles of Anandpur, of which there were many, including in the previous and following years. The topic is better covered as two sentences of background or aftermath in those articles. There is nothing to merge or redirect, as the only meaningful content was a copyright violation, and the title isn't a meaningful search term because of the parenthetical. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I might argue for some sort of merge per NOPAGE but there's really nothing to merge. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of WP:SIGCOV.

(TL;DR) The available material is so thin that wikipedia risks creating a chimeric historical event with dubious details in trying to write a supposedly encyclopedic article on the topic, as is seen in the current wikipedia article and the previous AFD discussion.

Details: The two cited sources treat the subject of the wikipedia article as the fourth battle of Anandpur, and the latter source combines discussion of the fourth and the fifth battle (which also was in 1703), devoting less than two sentences on the former (in a 1000+ pages tome). Other sources call it the Third battle of Anandpur, while again covering it cursorily. Yet others combine discussion of the numerous skirmishes around Anandpur in 1703-04 under the rubric of "The second battle of Anandpur" in a single sentence summary. I should note that all these sources are pretty borderline wrt WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Grewal (2019), likely the only WP:HISTRS-compatible source among those listed so far, discusses the battle in 3 sentences without giving it a name and his description of the battle result (... many fighters were killed on both sides. On the following day, no one dared to attack.) contrasts with the "Sikh victory" declared by the wikipedia article. The battle date and strength of forces reported in the wikipedia article are also unsourced and dubious. That's illustrative of the risk we run when we scrape the barrel for material and try to write an article in a tertiary publication that is an order of magnitude longer than the space any reliable secondary source devotes to the topic. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having checked the sources, I agree with the nominator 's assessment that there is no significant coverage about this battle, the first source only provides a single paragraph of coverage, and the second one refers to both the battles in one page while providing most coverage to the other battle and not this. Azuredivay (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(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]

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So then your argument is that being different and notable is not different and notable enough to be delineated on a website that literally is about informing people how things are different and notable. Your argument is just talking in circles. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 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]
We will wait with baited breath and stop the world to wait for your opinion. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 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”[43] 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”[44] 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, [45], this is an opinion piece [46], [47], [48]. 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 criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 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 [49] 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]

So wealthy well-connected podcasters get the social credit, but the minions get a little blurb that will be deleted by the Wikipedia Hatekeepers when they want to feel powerful, because they are meaningless humans otherwise. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[50] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist talking points and elitism isn't a policy-based argument. JDiala (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support this comment. It does not make sense to have a disambiguation unless needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NebulaDrift (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost none of these keep !votes have any relevance to our notability guidelines. Do we have WP:GNG/WP:NBIO here or not? That's the question at hand. Getting a lot of attention on social media or having a highly subscribed Substack are not relevant to WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I mentioned in my "Keep" !vote that the article passes GNG based on the availability of the reliable sources. That includes The Washington Post and others. The first relist was warranted, but this second one now is unjustified and the article should be closed as a "Keep" IMHO. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize there was doubt about whether the subject meets WP:GNG. There are many reliable sources. Here's a couple from a quick google search [51][52]. My comment about the Substack subscribers was addressing the appeal to WP:BLP1E which only applies to low profile individuals. Both this delete discussion and the first one from September centered on BLP1E so you didn't see comments addressing GNG since that didn't seem up for question. Mr. Squidroot (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per WP:GNG, there are perhaps enough reliable sources, but the article needs major shortening with the current RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [53] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a total of two pages of hits on GNews. Two pages. The sources there are all routine coverage, mentions, unreliable sources (e.g., blogs), and routine announcements. The Vice reference may meet the minimum threshold for ORGCRIT, but in no way is there enough significant coverage to come close to the minimum requirement of NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage in reliable source. Zuck28 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm the page creator. I trust the AfD process to determine notability and obviously recurse myself from voting (if I was to vote, I would agree with Weak Keep), however I strongly object to the claim of "Typical advertising spam." I have no affiliation with the company, have a history of anti-vandalism work, and I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.

While I'm here, I want to offer another source on top of what @WeirdNAnnoyed provided: https://techcrunch.com/2024/04/06/price-of-zero-day-exploits-rises-as-companies-harden-products-against-hackers/. Please note WP:TECHCRUNCH, however the article appears to be written by a staff writer without a COI, so thus should be sufficient in contributing to notability.

Thanks, Scaledish! Talkish? Statish. 00:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources don't prove notability and my searching didn't find anything else useful. Moritoriko (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The vice source is okay. I don't think the TechCrunch article counts as significant coverage. If they had sold a zero day exploit to someone that had an effect (that has been publicly reported) I think that would show how it is a notable company. Moritoriko (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Deletion argument is misguided. The article is true to its sources and is only "spam" in the sense that the company intentionally made bold claims to get press coverage and then did. On the other hand, making a splash one time in 2018 does not meet my bar for keep. Regardless of outcome, thank you @Scaledish for writing this article. Brandon (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep Misguided nomination, and # of hits in Google News is not a measure of notability. ITP article is trivial, but Vice (2x articles) and Techcrunch articles meet the threshold for WP:ORGCRIT. If requested, I can do the work of sourcing the article to meet the Heymann standard. Hmr (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned GNews, not because it is a measure of notability. If there are only two pages in GNews, it is a strong indicator the press don't feel the topic is worthy of being covered. If there were enough sources meeting ORGCRIT (there are not), I would have done HEY myself.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose deletion, keep due to misguided nomination, company is legitimate and there are reliable sources about it, nbminator should perform WP:BEFORE submitting AfD, the "... company deserves to be deleted" appears subjective Nayyn (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to opine on notability assuming the AfD is judged on the NCORP arguments and not the merits of the nomination? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's not get sidetracked by the nom statement - do we have sources for WP:NCORP or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrobics

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

Was previously soft deleted at Quadrobers. Appears to be a flash in the pan Russian furry-adjacent subculture where every source exists from a tiny window of time where this blew up into a moral panic. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject is notable, as demonstrated by 33 (!!!) reliable sources.
The English-language sources include:
1. Vogue: "Quadrobics is the fitness trend that improves all-over strength (and your abs)", 5 July 2024
2. New Indian Express: "Quadrobics: low-impact, high-intensity workout", 21 July 2024
3. The Manual (via Yahoo Life): "Quadrobics is a full-body workout surging in popularity — Here’s what to know", 10 December 2024
4. Women Health Magazine: "Horsing around: what is quadrobics and how do you do it?", 8 January 2025
The Russian-language sources include RIA Novosti, Vedomosti, Russian Public Opinion Research Center, Channel One Russia, RBC, Hi-Tech Mail, Izvestia, Gazeta.Ru, Lenta.ru, big Russian sports portals like Sports.ru [ru] and Championat.ru [ru]. Actually, too many to mention.
And just take a look at the Russian Wikipedia page (ru:Квадроберы) that has a stunning count of 70,000 characters. I have no idea why the nominator insists the subject is unnotable. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment. The nominator is the same user who wanted to delete the "Quadrobers" article back in January. The article has been edited/improved by many people and it seems that Warrenmck is the only one who has found something wrong (or inappropriate?) with it. In January, he argued that it was "a mostly unsourced flash-in-the-pan subculture or moral panic" and that "every source is from the same roughly one month window in Russia". Neither was true. The article was carefully sourced even back then, and the publications used as references were from as early as May 2024 and as late as December 2024. Now, there's at least one from 2025. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some Russian articles about quadrobics:
1. RBC Life: "What is quadrobics: Is it a sport or not. Why do they want to ban the quadrobics in Russia", 23 May 2024;
2. Mail.ru: "Quadrobics: What you need to know about a new hobby", 5 August 2024.
3. The Moscow Times (in English): "What is quadrobics, Russia's viral but divisive youth culture, 13 September 2024;

But, as I've said, there're too many to list here.
Therefore, if even this were an article about a Russia-only subculture (as the nominator argues), its subject would still pass WP:GNG.
(But it is not specific to Russia.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more English-language sources, currently unused:
1. BBC: "Quadrobic panic in Russia over craze to dress and walk on ...", 27 February 2025
  (I can't look at and use this one cause bbc.com isn't working for me.)
2. Barron's: "Fur flies as Russia takes on young fans of 'Quadrobics'", 8 November 2024

--Moscow Connection (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the author of both this article and the previously deleted one. I'm failing to see any sources that don't come from outside a tiny window of time when it was a flash in the pan meme in Russia. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the person who tried to delete the "Quadrobers" article in January. And the sole person on Wikipedia who finds it "inappropriate" or whatever.
"I'm failing to see any sources that don't come from outside a tiny window of time when it was a flash in the pan meme in Russia."
— OMG, I've listed several here. Some were published as early as May 2024. And they already were listed in this article back in January. I wonder why you couldn't see them and still can't. I've also listed two from 2025 right here today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSUSTAINED is the issue, here.

Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year it's in the news. That's already not a "brief burst of news coverage".
Moreover, the four English-language sources I listed in my first comment aren't even news articles. They just talk about quadrobics in general, as a workout. They explain what it is. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except that isn't sustained over a year, it seems to mostly be English press occasionally picking up the situation in Russia and covering that offset in time, i.e. a huge amount of those sources are about the exact same event (in this case the virality of Quadrobing in Russia occasionally as it relates to LGBTQ+ persecution in Russia) Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:14, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you think so. Quadrobics is not just about Russia. Quadrobics is still trending on YouTube, TikTok, and probably on Instagram too. There's also a "Quadrobics" subreddit, it is alive and well. Quadrobics isn't going anywhere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV and nontrivial impact. --Altenmann >talk 15:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per previous AfD. Only a regional variation of the Furry fandom. Svartner (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't true on so many levels... (It's so wrong that it's impossible to argue with.... "Furry fandon", whatever... In short, there are 1 trillion sources, the topic is notable. Full stop.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False argument. (1) not regional (you can easily see this from refs cited) and (2) not furry fandom(you can easily see this from refs cited) --Altenmann >talk 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be regional; practically every reference I can find is referring to a social media craze that is, by all accounts, just Russian. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely false. The four sources that I listed first don't even mention Russia.
I have no idea how to comment on your comments. What you say is simply false. You should just admit that you want to delete this article no matter what. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that don’t mention Russia mention a social media craze which, per the articles specifically talking about that, is from Russia. There is no sourcing for a social media craze outside of Russia I’ve been able to find.

please remember WP:AGF, a lack of belief WP:GNG has been met isn’t the same thing as being hostile to a topic. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no sourcing for a social media craze outside of Russia I’ve been able to find."
—The first four sources I listed aren't Russian and don't even mention Russia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, they cite that it’s been a trend on social media. I’m unable to find any references to that trend extending outside Russia. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe that’s enough to pass WP:GNG, but I haven’t seen a single source yet that really implies this is anything other than a flash in the pan Russian fad. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 13:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that there aren't any sources except the first four ones I listed on this page. They talk about quadrobics in detail, and they are already enough for quadrobics to pass WP:GNG. And they don't even mention Russia. And neither do these ones: Garage Gym Reviews, Baptist Health, Findmykids.org. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The subject is notable and has multiple independent sources. Additionally, the article already has 3 corresponding articles in different languages.Masktapeisawesome (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep through the good research of Moscow Connection, easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Bacon

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

I created this article at the request of the Women in Red project. User:Billsmith60 doesn’t think she is notable but their own WP:AFD submission was incorrectly formatted so I am bringing it here myself for the community to decide. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Architecture. Theroadislong (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lead architect on several notable projects and clearly of high standing in her profession. PamD 07:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (as per my comments on article Talk page; I am grateful to user:Theroadislong for their assistance in reopening my proposal): this looks like a clear candidate for deletion. Being nominated for a professional award does not make someone notable. All sources cited are from professional journals or merely Companies House regarding her business interests. She is known only within that professional sector (architecture). Notwithstanding improvements to address the lack of articles on women, Wikipedia rules have to be adhered to: if this article stays, every British managing partner in a business will want one Billsmith60 (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nothing is sourced to Companies House and she seems to easily pass WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable, sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate and full name were sourced to CH. I found an alternative source for her name whi h does not include birthdate, now removed. PamD 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NARCHITECT as the lead architect on multiple notable buildings/projects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Guangzhao

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

Does not meet GNG, and this person's positions fail to meet NPOL criteria either Cinder painter (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article erroneously stated that he was party secretary of Inner Mongolia, a position that would probably make him automatically notable. Based on the cited sources, he is only party secretary of the Inner Mongolia Public Security Department, which is not a position that makes him automatically notable. I have corrected the article accordingly.

Though he is not automatically notable under NPOL, I have not yet done a search for sources to check if the GNG is met. Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zhuang, Yu 庄彧 (2021-06-22). "郑光照任商洛市委书记(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Party Secretary of Shangluo Municipal Committee (Photo | Resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-08-12. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网地方党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月出生，2016年起任商洛市委副书记、市长。原任商洛市委书记的郭永红近日已任陕西省副省长。郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the database of local party and government leaders of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao was born in September 1966 and has served as deputy secretary and mayor of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee since 2016. Guo Yonghong, the former secretary of Shangluo Municipal Party Committee, has recently been appointed as vice governor of Shaanxi Province. Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics."
2. Shi, Lanlan 石兰兰 (2016-08-27). "郑光照当选商洛市市长(图|简历)" [Zheng Guangzhao was elected mayor of Shangluo City (photo | resume)]. Economic Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "据中国经济网党政领导人物库资料显示，郑光照，1966年9月生，此前担任渭南市委常委、常务副市长，近日已任商洛市委副书记、市政府党组书记；原任商洛市长的是陈俊，女，1960年10月出生，近日已任商洛市委书记（相关报道）。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the data of the Party and Government Leaders Database of China Economic Net, Zheng Guangzhao, born in September 1966, previously served as a member of the Standing Committee of the Weinan Municipal Party Committee and Executive Vice Mayor, and has recently been appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee and Secretary of the Party Group of the Municipal Government; the former Shangluo Mayor is Chen Jun, female, born in October 1960, and has recently been appointed as the Secretary of the Shangluo Municipal Party Committee (related reports)."
3. Hai, Jun 海军 (2022-12-04). Zhang, Xuedong 张雪冬; Liu, Ze 刘泽 (eds.). "郑光照在凉城县宣讲党的二十大精神并开展林长制巡查工作" [Zheng Guangzhao preached the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in Liangcheng County and carried out forest chief system inspection work]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "11月28日，自治区副主席、公安厅厅长郑光照到乌兰察布市凉城县，为机关干部和基层民警宣讲党的二十大精神。"
  From Google Translate: "On 28 November 28, Zheng Guangzhao, Vice Chairman of the Autonomous Region and Director of the Public Security Department, went to Liangcheng County, Ulanqab City, to preach the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Party to cadres and grassroots police."
4. "郑光照同志简介" [Brief introduction of Comrade Zheng Guangzhao]. Inner Mongolia Daily [zh] (in Chinese). 2022-07-29. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月生，在职研究生，中共党员，现任内蒙古自治区副主席、政府党组成员，自治区公安厅党委书记、厅长、督察长，自治区党委政法委副书记（兼）。"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, is a postgraduate student and a member of the Communist Party of China. He is currently the Vice Chairman of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and a member of the Party Leadership Group of the Government, the Party Secretary, Director and Inspector General of the Autonomous Region Public Security Department, and the Deputy Secretary of the Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Autonomous Region Party Committee (concurrently)."
5. Li, Zhiqiang 李志强 (2016-08-06). "陈俊任陕西商洛市委书记郑光照任商洛市委副书记" [Chen Jun is appointed as the Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee, and Zheng Guangzhao is appointed as the Deputy Secretary of the CPC Shangluo Municipal Committee] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "郑光照，男，汉族，1966年9月出生，陕西礼泉人，1988年11月参加工作，1998年12月加入中国共产党，研究生学历，经济学学士。历任咸阳市粮油食品土畜产品外贸公司副经理，长武县副县长，"
  From Google Translate: "Zheng Guangzhao, male, Han nationality, born in September 1966, from Liquan, Shaanxi Province, started working in November 1988, joined the Communist Party of China in December 1998, has a postgraduate degree, and a bachelor's degree in economics. He has served as deputy manager of Xianyang Cereals, Oils, Foods, Local Products and Livestock Foreign Trade Company, deputy county magistrate of Changwu County, ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zheng Guangzhao (simplified Chinese: 郑光照; traditional Chinese: 鄭光照) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these appear like basic political profiles, which would be a run-of-the-mill career. IgelRM (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources provide significant coverage about the subject. The guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline do not exclude an article on a politician who have had "a run-of-the-mill career" if the politician has received significant coverage as is the case here. Cunard (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you see as significant besides being chosen as secretary? IgelRM (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on this[54] which confirms he was a National People's Congress delegate in 2018. Per WP:NPOL a member of China's national legislative body is presumed notable. The sourcing found by Cunard addresses verifiability of his positions. Oblivy (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

75 Hard

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

This is (in my opinion), clearly promotional content. Yes, there are some articles about it, but significant coverage seems to be lacking. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not finding any reliable sources in the article. All appear to be promotional sources and written in same pattern. The article tone itself is quite promotional. Mekomo (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 75 Hard exists for a lot of other things as one of those New Year's resolution programs, but is definitely not a copyrighted concept as it can apply to personal finance, mental health awareness, personal achievement, weight loss and a multitude of other things. This concept is just one of many and this program may have launched it, but it's not the 'be all end all' and though the actual name is trademarked, it's de facto in the public domain at this point as the originator hasn't pursued any visible infringement claims against it. Nathannah • 📮 14:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled across this article, but I did add some additional news coverage. I think also it has been a pretty significant trend within the health/wellness influencer space in 2024/2025, despite the framing and list of rules being from 2019.

I think it probably needs some work to be more neutral/less promotional though. Disasterfemme (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MXlo

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

No sources, very scant usage of the term mxlo online. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Best Regards (CP) 01:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my own search also came up empty. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April Hutchinson

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

Does not meet WP:NATHLETE, and the page is almost entirely comprised by primary sources not independent of the subject for statements of fact, primary sources of non notable sporting events, low quality unreliable blogs such as Reduxx, and generally unreliable or outright unreliable news sources such as Fox News, Rebel News, and New York Post on issues related to GENSEX to the point where once those sources are excised the subject does not meet any form of notability even as an Anti-Trans activist. Page was accepted after a series of failed reviews despite no edits between the last review pointing out the problems with the page and the acceptance by a separate reviewer, which may explain some of these problems. Relm (talk) 00:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete I believe this article was not ready to come out of draft space, and the editor who worked on it had not responded to the critique of the previous submission or touched Wikipedia since. I think the issues with the page are substantial enough to consider outright deletion, but sending it back to draft space for the original author - should they return to the project - to continue to get used to WP:RSP may be sufficient. Relm (talk) 00:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is false.

Here are the current citations and sports accomplishments that are notable:

North American Powerlifting Federation

Megyn Kelly Show

Open Powerlifting

Alberta Assembly

CBC News

New York Post

NBC 15 News

London Free Press (2)

Fox News (2)

Newsweek

Outkick (2)

CTV News

Sports achievements:

North American Regional Powerlifting Championships

Gold medal – first place 2022 Panama Masters 1

Silver medal – second place 2022 Cayman Islands Masters 1

Nationals

Silver medal – second place 2022 Newfoundland Masters 1

Gold medal – first place 2023 British Columbia Masters 1

Central Canadian Powerlifting and Bench Press Championships

Gold medal – first place 2021 Ontario Masters 1

Ontario Provincials

Gold medal – first place 2022 Ontario Open

OPA Masters and Open Provincial Powerlifting Championship

Gold medal – first place 2023 Ontario Masters 1

Reduxx has one single article.

This request is not accurate. QcAmbitious (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting from the talk page[55]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NATHLETE, WP:RELIABLE, WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY, WP:INDEPENDENT, and WP:DUE.

A source existing does not make the source notable, nor does it make it reliable. Wikipedia prioritizes reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This page is primarily built on primary sources not independent of the author, or which do not provide any semblance of notability such as the direct links to event placements and her personal details. Primary sources are okay in some circumstances, but in this case all that would be left in early life is a link to her own page cited to a claim that she was born in Ontario. Career beginnings section is exclusively cited to primary sources. So far there is nothing to suggest this person is notable as an athlete, just that their athletic profile exists. If someone made a page for me and cited my USChess profile, that would not make me notable as a chess player - what would is if reliable secondary sources discuss my play.

The 'women's rights advocate' claim is sourced to a Megyn Kelly appearance. Megyn Kelly's show - and syndicated television news generally speaking - is not a reliable source.

The activism section is sourced to a vimeo video by the subject, rebel news (not a reliable source [56]), a link to assembly minutes (Primary source); and then a citelist of a podcast, two WP:UNDUE blogposts, and a link to a primary source from an anti trans advocacy group.

So now we get to the Controversy section.

Hutchinson gained attention after being removed from the "Resilient London: Meet Your Neighbours" exhibit at Museum London, Ontario, due to her comments on transgender athletes.

This claim is cited to 7 sources. CBC News (mostly reliable with the caveat that it's state funded), Reduxx (a hate blog), another blog, the New York Post (Unreliable per WP:NYPOST), a local affiliate of NBC which does not actually contribute to the claim but rather is just a primary source for the comments themselves, London Free Press (A local newspaper), GB news (unreliable, and would be deprecated if it was cited more [57]), and Fox news (unreliable WP:FOXNEWS).

We then have an accidental double cite of the same CBC news article, Newsweek (used to be reliable, but now isn't WP:NEWSWEEK), True North (definitely an unreliable news source and I'm happy to take that to WP:RSN if you want confirmation). We then have Fox News again, Daily Citizen (an anti LGBT advocacy group, not a news source), true north again, and then Fox News a third time. Next is a triplet of sources, the first to a blogpost, the second to Sportskeeda - which I have never heard of but I will assume for the benefit of the doubt that it is fine, and Outkick (which is under FOX News). Outkick again, and the earlier local newspaper from her home town.

The personal life snippet about alcoholism is sourced to Gamesday London (sports section of the earlier local paper) and CTV which is fine.

So after all of that, we are left with:

A single CBC article and potentially a Sportskeeda article covering her comments and the aftermath, and the CTV article about her alcoholism.

That's 2, possibly 3, reliable secondary sources at best to provide notability. This is a local interest story picked up by anti trans advocates, but she is not even notable for that relative to other figures like Riley Gaines. This person does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Relm (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Relm (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources about the subject speaking out about trans women participating in powerlifting, e.g. The London Free Press, CBC News, a local NBC news affiliate, The Montreal Gazette (November 2023) and The Windsor Star (June 2024). There are also two articles before this time in 2022 about the subject's path to powerlifting in The London Free Press and CTV News. I can understand how these could be missed given the multiple non-independent, non-Wikipedia notable references in the article. Nonetheless, the article appears to meet WP:BASIC. Not sure if article meets WP:NATH as there is no Wikipedia policy guidance on this; the subject has placed 1st five times and 2nd two times in competitions. Note that this article cleared the WP:AFC process last month. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were not missed and were discussed in my above post save the Montreal Gazette and Windsor Star (not in the article to my knowledge). The issue is that of the sources which are left with the exception of CTV News and CBC News, these are all local papers - and they're all covering the same two local interest stories about this person. There is a paucity of reliable sources above the local level, and what they cover does not seem to make this individual notable as an athlete or as an activist. In regards to the AFC, the article was declined three times, and the last one in January - the page received no edits between being declined for serious issues and being accepted by a different reviewer last month. Relm (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige Flowers

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

An IP (188.31.32.68) tried to put this up for deletion a week ago but didn't complete the other steps for it to show up everywhere. I also did my own search for anything to show notability but all I got was an article from the s*n complaining about quality and a local paper interviewing the owner. The article was also created by a single purpose account (aka creating this page) and has not been significantly edited in the 6 years it has existed. Moritoriko (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Moritoriko (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish unification of 1830

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

This did not happen, there is no mention of this in the sources posted, this page is just an Propaganda.Iranian112 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly a pattern to Battle of Rawandiz (AfD discussion), Draft:Rawandiz revolt, and Draft:Rawandiz Revolt that is framing history through a modern lens; and I see no support in those or other history books for regarding the Soran Emirate as an actual Kurdish unification, especially as they (including Eppel, cited in this article and elsewhere, ironically) record the Botan emirate as being separate. (Eppel, in the earlier 2014 of that chapter, also calls Kor's ambitions "self-centred", not nationalist.) This does seem to be a skewed version of what the books say.
This article creator has a bad habit of not giving page numbers, too. So here some are: ISBN 9780292758131 pp. 53–55; ISBN 9781477311073 pp. 51–54; and ISBN 9781315468402 p.12.
Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

[1]