Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 29	March 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Michael Eigen

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

No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and United States of America. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His main works are Psychotic Core and Psychoanalytic Mystic.

I disagree strongly with him not being notable. Eigen is a major figure, and the fact that, e.g., Routledge published an introduction to his work (which is rare for a living person) testifies to that fact: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003002871/michael-eigen-loray-daws

His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.

However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).

The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.

But I strongly object to a deletion, Eigen is important, and the literature reflects that clearly. Honigfrau (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GERRI

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

No indication of importance. If the page was about a real person, an individual animal, a commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event, it would probably fit CSD criterion A7. That's why I listed this at PROD at first, but it was controversial, so I'm listing this at WP:AFD. RaschenTechner (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: consider merge to Geriatrics under Cognition section if the topic is not strong enough to warrant its own page.Villkomoses (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Ending Romance

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

Appears to be an insignificant EP release. KaisaL (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As written, this is just a catalogue entry. Redirect to the performer or their list of works for now. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comment. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – The article, as written, lacks significant coverage or reliable sources to establish notability. Given that it is a part of the band’s work, redirecting to their main page (or a discography section) makes sense for now. If future sources emerge, it can always be expanded. PriyasVP (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Math and Physics Club. EPs are not always notable, even when the band is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NEMO (Stellar Dynamics Toolbox)

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

Non-notable stellar dynamics toolkit. No coverage beyond a couple papers and a brief mention in a 1997 book. Note: the article was also started by one of the toolkit's co-creators. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Computing. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Piet Hut: This software is used or mentioned in hundreds of independent publications, although none of them appear to discuss the software in detail. It should be discussed in some article even though it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. I would seriously consider revising the guidelines to allow articles like this to be kept, similar to how WP:NMEDIA and WP:NPERIODICAL have a criterion for publications that are widely cited by other reliable sources, but that is a discussion for a different time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "merge" I mean adding a single sentence to Piet Hut. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge – Per Helpful Raccoon. The relevant content can be migrated to a new section. Svartner (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geo storm

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

Unclear that anything at this dabpage is actually ambiguous. Geo Storm is not known as Geostorm, and vice-versa. Users seeking GunForce II and Geomagnetic storm are not likely to use the search term "geo storm". This can all be handled with hatnotes. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This disambiguation page is useful and avoids lengthy hatnotes. I completely agree that "Geo Storm" is not known as "Geostorm", and vice-versa, but "Geo storm" could be either. It is not clear what any redirect target would be. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it useful? I'll point out once again that nothing here is actually ambiguous. If the dabpage is deleted, the search query "geo storm" would simply end up at Geo Storm, and that seems fine. 162 etc. (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik Avetisyan

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

Non-notable person. AgerJoy 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Seems adequately sourced- won some awards highlighting a degree of WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTFB. I can't verify that the Cannes International Exhibition of Modern Art exists, or grants awards, or any "New Talent and Creative Thought prize". There's an event called the International Fine Art Cannes Biennale, which does not appear to be notable. Nor does Cobweb art appear to be notable. As far as significant coverage goes, the article is sourced to local Armenian media (newspapers and TV) and YouTube. There's literally no sources from Cannes, or any other places. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not Instagram. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Street Party (TV series)

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

Article has been sitting around since 2006 with no substantive WP:RS. Article should be deleted complete or merged with MTV.Variety312 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Albertto

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

Fails GNG. I can't find any coverage except for 1988 article in LA Times. Article is completely promotional and was created by banned user. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 20:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Panama. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. While most of the sources (both in the article and in a quick google search) are pretty low quality, I've found a couple that I think are usable for notability purposes. Mr Feel Good Academy of Fashion Arts and Sciences Ageist, and LA Style. He was also quoted in a 1994 issue of Cosmopolitan[1] but I am not sure if that article provided substantial coverage. His heyday as an agent appears to have been in pre- and early internet days so more sources may be available offline. Article should be trimmed and rewritten to avoid promotion and unsourced detail but I think there is some substance behind the glitz. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not knowledgeable about fashion, but a quick online search shows a few different profiles that indicate notability as Eluchil404 listed. Article does need a significant rewrite to meet quality standards though.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Swiss TV series)

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

Article has been sitting around for years with no citations. Much of the content is captured in the Big Brother (franchise) article. Variety312 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's not nothing [2] [3] [4] [5]. I didn't go through all the search results since that had 1000+ more [6]. This does probably pass GNG scrolling through that but NOPAGE might be a consideration here. But we do have separate articles for most of the other nationality series it seems, and they are effectively different shows. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Swissdox has hundreds of exact hits for "Big Brother Schweiz", and possibly tens of thousands that don't use the full name. This show and its former contestants are still getting significant coverage in reliable sources in 2025 [7], 2024 [8], 2023 – SRF documentary titled "Die grosse Reality-TV Spezialsendung", 2022 [9], and 2020 [10]. If anyone needs more convincing, I will gladly list more or provide copies of inaccessible sources. Toadspike [Talk] 19:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Hungarian TV series)

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

Article has been stagnant for more than a decade with no citations. Content is already available in Big Brother (franchise) article and should be merged there or deleted entirely. Variety312 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hungary. Variety312 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISQ.networks Press Agency

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Companies, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor – A sziget

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

Lots of edits since 2011 by no WP:RS. merge with larger article on Survivor television program. Survivor (franchise) Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Panamá

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

No substantive wp:RS were found during WP:Before. Content already exists on larger article about Big Brother (franchise). Variety312 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Panama. Variety312 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids' Choice Award for Favorite Male TV Star

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

Article has been tagged since 2011. Although numerous edits have been made, none have added citations. Recommend merging with larger article on Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Variety312 (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Feels like you could just easily add the source for each ceremony from each year's KCA article rather than just adding it to a vortex of deletions. Nathannah • 📮 19:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Boss

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

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor (Bulgarian TV series)

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

Content already exists in the main The X Factor article. Some of the analysis and detail here would appear to constitute WP:OR. Variety312 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Bulgaria. Variety312 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The X Factor: This is overloaded with detail. Merge any relevant items. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austria Billie Jean King Cup team

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

Article appears to undergo regular edits with no WP:RS, Suggest merging content with Billie Jean King Cup which already contains details about the competitors. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Tennis, and Austria. Variety312 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no deletion rationale presented above. Was a WP:BEFORE search performed? Also, the suggested merge target is completely inappropriate. Billie Jean King Cup is the article that contains all the high level information about the competition from its founding as the Federation Cup to the present day, and currently has 0 mention of this particular team (and also has 0 depth of any other team at the level this article goes in to). AfD isn't supposed to be used to propose bad merges or as a time pressured source finding/article improvement tool. Iffy★Chat -- 16:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable Billie Jean King Cup team so why on earth would we delete it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no sources indicating the Austria team for the Fed cup/Billie Jean King cup is or has been notable. There is routine coverage of their results from certain years, but I have not found anything else. Merely claiming it is a notable BJK team does not make it so, there needs to be sources to meet general notability.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you asked for sources, here's some: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Is that enough for you? Iffy★Chat -- 10:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keneth Hall (surgeon)

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

A surgeon, offering the usual range of surgical appropaches, and with the usual side-hussles. Scopus shows an H-index of 5, entirely consisting of mid-author publication, suggesting that he is not a lead contributor in any research. Prizes are sufficiently noteworthy; listing in Marquis Who's Who Biographical Registry also doesn't seem sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on WP:SIGCOV. Surgery doesn't always get the respect that other specialties get in medicine. He moved from being one of many surgeons at NYU to being chair of an Upstate New York hospital department. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first real source isn't even formatted properly, no real secondary sources in the first or second block and the two awards and honours are not awards. I don't see much else. Not seeing any research or writing monographs or any named chairs. Not much to go on at all. I don't good career progression is particularly notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before creating this page, I did a proper Google search on the topic and discovered the Dr meets the notability requirements.

Contrary to what the nominator hinted as his reason, Dr. Hall had led multiple medical research and has contributed to many of such research and academic peer-reviewed publications which are published on medical journals and other media platforms.^[1] For want of WP:NPOV, I didn't include them at the initial creation of the page. I made sure the page remains neutral as required. Now, I've included a section for his "Medical research and academic contributions" with the link given.

Also, Dr Hall hall had been appointed to serve in various top capacities in his fields such as

Chair of the PHO Subcommittee on Obesity
Director of Bariatric Quality Improvement
Director of Surgical Simulations
Medical Director of Bariatrics and Minimally Invasive Surgery at Rome Health
Medical Director of Weight Loss Center and Wound Care Center at Rome Health in Rome, New York

He has also won multiple awards. For want of WP:NPOV, I only included those two. Also most of the sources used pass WP:RS, such as THIS, THIS, THIS, and others.

Judging from the above, I strongly believe that WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO Pax Zah Iyeuna (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The research papers added to not meet criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. They have few (if any) citations and most don't seem to be in notable medical journals. Providing a google scholar link showing number of hits does not meet criteria for notability as it's picking up contributions from any person named Keneth Hall or Ken Hall or even just the last name Hall. I do not think inclusion in Marquis Who's Who Biographical Registry meets criteria for notability, as nomination criteria and fact checking of the list are opaque. While there are reliable sources, not many indicate notability. Coverage from the Rome Sentinel and MVHealthNews is local, and I'm not giving articles there the same weight as a national paper. Some of these sources seem to be brief bios or non-notable coverage of medical seminars for the community.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo da Via Anfossi

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

The page doesn't appear to be encyclopedic. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what respect? Give people something to hang their hats on. Uncle G (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are some sources online: Discogs, AllMusic, Viberate, Google News, etc. Instagram is not a reliable source, but he has 47,400 followers. I'm not sure that it's significant coverage, but I'm equally unsure that a decent search was done before nominating it. Bearian (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Rashwan

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the cited articles are directly about him. Gheus (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've dug up a Forbes staff article and an Ars Technica article about him with significant coverage. Both reliable per WP:RSP. Hmr (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject looks notable and has enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep: Here is an additional article that talks about the others involved in 21Shares, its more of a trivial mention of Rashwan but it might be useful for this article anyways. Moritoriko (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Until someone does the work of adding the sources found to the article, in context, I can't say it's yet reached the Heymann standard. Please ping me when you have done so. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shag Musa Medani

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

Declined prod with reason "subject meets WP:NATH as a cross country national champion". I'm not sure if this relates to WP:NATH #4 "Have won their country's senior national championship, with the exception of those who have never been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year". There isn't enough evidence that he is in the top 60 IAAF for cross country. All sources are databases and fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sudan. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with citing NATH in general in AfDs, but if you're going to bring it up, yes, subject clearly meets NATH prong 4 as an XC national champion and was in fact ranked 55th (top 60) in the world by the IAAF in cross country in 1977: [18].

What's always been more important was the general notability guideline, which can be met in a variety of ways including by WP:NEXIST. The case for NEXIST for this subject is strong, as the top Sudanese representative around the world in several disciplines over a multi-year period in the 1970s. I've looked and couldn't find prose-based coverage yet, but I would expect to find articles in physical Sudanese newspapers of the era, which could be accessible to us via a Wikipedian in Sudan. --Habst (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dondero High School A Capella Choir Pop Concert

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

I rejected this at draftspace but it was moved to mainspace and renamed. This fails WP:GNG due to a lack of secondary coverage. The book was written by someone who went to the high school and isn't secondary, and the reporting is local coverage, mostly of the book which was written. It's also not written from a neutral point of view, which is a clean up issue if this is kept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The book is usable for historical information, and we don't need it to establish notability because the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are enough to establish notability. The articles are relevant. The Detroit News is one of the most important newspapers in the United States. The Oakland Free Press is the most important newspaper in Oakland County. Articles relevant to Metro Detroit help achieve notability. The area has a greater population than some countries. The Metro Detroit area has millions of people. If you asked 100 people what their subjective opinion on what a neutral point of view is, they would give 100 different answers. As far as I am aware, the statements in the article are backed by reliable sources. I believe that is as objective as you can get. Orlando Davis (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Wikipedia rules require significant coverage of reliable and independent sources so that a fair and balanced article can be written. All of the articles used in the Pop Concert article are from reliable sources, including the Detroit News article and two separate Oakland Press articles, and those articles have the pop concert as the main subject and not just a passing mention, making the coverage in the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles significant. The Detroit News and Oakland Press articles are also independent sources as they were written by writers who were not affiliated with the pop concert. Wikipedia requires at least one secondary source for an article to qualify, and this article has several secondary sources, including the Detroit News article and the 2 Oakland Press articles. Wikipedia requires multiple sources for an article to qualify (The definition of multiple is more than one). The Detroit News article and the 2 separate Oakland Press articles satisfy the multiple articles Wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia's notability guidelines posted here in the section "why we have these requirements": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. The Pop Concert article also establishes notability by explaining that the Pop Concert was innovative and groundbreaking for its time in the field of high school choir performance. Also, I had the right to move up the Pop Concert article once it was no longer in the articles of creation space since I am an autoconfirmed user. Orlando Davis (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: "Local sources are considered to be reliable sources if they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for being reliable sources. They are valid in establishing notability if they provide in-depth, non-routine, non-trivial coverage of the subject." See this Wikipedia article: Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)#:~:text=Articles on local interests are,going, non-trivial coverage. As I stated before, the Detroit News and Oakland Press articles provide in-depth coverage, and not just a passing mention of the Dondero Pop Concert. Also, the article Mr Hartoe's Opus was written 9 years before the other articles and compares Mr. Hartsoe's story to the movie Mr. Holland's Opus while discussing the history of the Dondero Pop Concert. The other two articles mention the book but focus primarily on the history of the Dondero Pop concert. Orlando Davis (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Af1

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

Found while doing NPP. Fails WP:NSONG. I was unable to find any more reliable sources to establish notability. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Dust (magazine)

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

The article is an advertisement for a non-existent magazine from the UK. Aquabluetesla (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muroosystems

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

Advert tone, cross-wiki spam. Aqurs1 (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm new to Wikipedia, not spam. Can you point out exactly what's wrong? I'll fix it. Cycm1122 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look on WP:NOTPROMO, and article does not meet notability guildline. Aqurs1 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the text and the links. Please check again, thanks! Cycm1122 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meets WP:N. Shwangtianyuan Working together for the better community 09:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please approve. Cycm1122 (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion – subject meets notability through multiple independent sources

The article satisfies WP:GNG through significant coverage by independent, reliable sources:

Economist.kg, Kabar, and Kazinform report on Muroosystems’ IT and energy projects in Central Asia, including government-level agreements and hydropower development;
Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) lists Muroosystems as a funded participant in national trade digitalization programs;
Zukan.biz and Weekly BCN provide independent coverage of the company’s financials and platform strategy.

In 2024, Muroosystems acquired Nukem, a German nuclear engineering firm, in a transaction reported by World Nuclear News and other industry sources.

These clearly demonstrate real-world impact and lasting significance beyond routine announcements. The article meets notability and should be improved, not deleted. Cycm1122 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". Cycm1122 (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage is mostly about the Nukem acquisition that I find, which isn't quite enough to show notability. As it's a routine business transaction, we need article about the company, not on what the company bought. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your specific feedback. I’ve already shared my reasons above for why I don’t think the article should be deleted. That said, I agree that more independent coverage would definitely help, and I’ll keep an eye out for new sources so I can continue improving the page.

With nuclear energy making a comeback globally, I’m also hoping to create and expand more articles on companies involved in this field. Cycm1122 (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found several English sources and added them. Cycm1122 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability is supported by multiple independent sources

I created this article and welcome improvements. While the Nukem acquisition is a notable part of the company's story, it's far from the only reason this subject is notable.

Muroosystems has been covered by independent sources across multiple domains — including trade digitalization projects backed by Japan’s METI, bilateral cooperation with governments in Central Asia (covered by 24.kg, Kabar, Kazinform), and business coverage from outlets like Weekly BCN and Zukan Biz.

These aren’t trivial mentions or routine press releases — they show consistent coverage and involvement in publicly funded initiatives and government-level infrastructure.

Happy to further improve the article’s structure if needed, but the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. – Cycm1122 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (Cricket) awards

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is WPL version of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Premier_League_awards. I have made this article after 3 years of the event which is enough time for the notability of the tournament Rtyggu (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WPL on its own doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for this. Vestrian24Bio 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IPL awards took 10 years to reach notability. Vestrian24Bio 08:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Does not need to be deleted. OCDD (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the league article. Once there's something of depth to add here it can be re-created, but at present there's very, very little that's worthwhile Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a list, so it does not have to meet the GNG or receive significant coverage. It only has to be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" per NLIST. The few sources in the article are enough to confirm that NLIST is met. Toadspike [Talk] 16:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources on the page does that. Vestrian24Bio 04:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher

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

No sources. No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the article is describing is the Night of Power. Whether this is a legitimate name for it is another question. If it is, redirect, but I don't think it is, so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in its original state, the article contained three references, none of which mentioned Al-'Ashr al-Awakher at all. Since nomination at AfD, the creating editor has added a rough translation from the urwiki article, but I am not sure what to make of the references that are now there - they look like primary sources to me, but my knowledge of Islam is quite poor. In any case, although my WP:BEFORE searches turned up references to the last ten nights of Ramadan and that the Night of Power occurs within that period (so the topic is possibly notable), I could find nothing linking the phrase Al-'Ashr al-Awakher with it at all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first version of the article was incomplete, I've improved it now, so I think it should keep. Leo^talk 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Seems to be mistake; nomination withdrawn. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Jean Chrétien

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

The topic doesn’t seem notable enough in its own right to have its own article.

Possibly could be merged into Jean Chrétien (Though we’ll need to find sources for this info in order to merge). ApexParagon (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. ApexParagon (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fairyland (band)

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

Only reliable coverage present is one article from Blabbermouth. Could not find additional coverage for the band or any of their albums. No appearance of NBAND passage beyond albums on Napalm Records; certainly shouldn't approve of that without GNG. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Further to the Blabbermouth coverage, there are at least 3 more WP:RSMUSIC publications covering the subject: staff bio & staff review on Allmusic: [19], [20], a by-lined album review on metal.de: [21], and several articles and reviews available on Rock Hard: [22]. ResonantDis_tortion 22:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Geschichte (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grok (web framework)

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Sources provided are primary or blog sites and I was unable to find any other reliable sources. Not to be confused with the other Grok by Twitter/X. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 18:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was instrumental to the creation of Grok the web framework so I'm not an unbiased source; in this day and age I would not feel comfortable editing a wikipedia page about it anymore. We're talking about a web framework that had minor but global attention but has had little attention for a long time.

There is actually a published book about Grok:

https://www.packtpub.com/en-us/product/grok-10-web-development-9781847197498

https://www.amazon.com/Grok-1-0-Development-Carlos-Guardia/dp/1847197485

At some point Grok technology was part of the Plone project:

https://4.docs.plone.org/appendices/five-grok/background/what-is-grok-and-five-grok.html

It's not a surprise most of the stuff you could find is in blog sites; this was a web framework conceived during the heyday of blogging and a lot of the primary evidence it had some significance and users in multiple countries is through blog entries. So in the rest I will attempt to show that there was a little global community that used Grok and talked about it. I'm from the Netherlands myself, gave conference talks at least in Germany as far as I can recall.

The author of the Grok book, Carlos de la Guardia, is from Mexico.

Here's a company in Lithuania that still has a page up offering Grok consulting services:

http://www.nous.lt/consulting.html

Here's a conference talk recording (with terrible audio) about Grok at a Pycon conference in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF77e2TeeQo

Here's a talk held in Argentina about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVbFujCBHjg

Here's a random youtube video mentioning Grok:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h17HFEwhz80

A US developer at Georgia tech:

And here are some blog entries:

https://rhodesmill.org/brandon/2007/my-november-grok-presentation/

A US developer reports on a developer in Brazil (now the author of "Fluent Python") using it:

https://www.nateaune.com/kirbi-a-peer-to-peer-library-built-with-grok/

Here's someone blogging in French about it:

https://www.boureliou.com/2009/grok-1-0-released/

Here's a presentation in Japanese that mentions Grok:

http://plone.jp/event-report/opendocs/osw2009-zope

Here's the website of a company in Germany who talk about a Grok meetup:

https://www.acsr.de/archive/der-grok-neanderthal-sprint-im-rheinland/

So it was notable enough to have a small global community of people who used it and talked about t, but it was also a relatively small community. Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this paper which discusses Grok:

"Leveraging Convention over Configuration for

Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages"

https://dave.coffee/assets/GreHack-2012-Leveraging_Convention_over_Configuration_for_Static_Analysis_in_Dynamic_Languages.pdf Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a google book search and there are actually quite a few books that mention Grok:

Professional Plone 4 Development by Martin Aspeli, 2011

Pro Python System Administration by Rytis Sileika, 2014

Python for Unix and Linux System Administration by Noah Gift, ‎Jeremy M. Jones, 2008

Plone 3 Products Development Cookbook by Juan Pablo Giménez, 2010

Foundations of Python Network Programming by John Goerzen, ‎Tim Bower, ‎Brandon Rhodes, 2011

Mastering Python Design Patterns by Sakis Kasampalis, 2015

Python: Master the Art of Design Patterns by Dusty Phillips, ‎Chetan Giridhar, ‎Sakis Kasampalis, 2016

Enterprise Android: Programming Android Database Applications for the Enterprise

By Zigurd Mednieks, G. Blake Meike, Laird Dornin, Zane Pan, 2013

Even an article on Dutch history by J.W.J. Burgers – Rik Hoekstra The registers of the counts of Holland, 1316–1345: a digital edition in G. Vogeler (Hrsg.): Digitale Diplomatik

/ Buchrezensionen mentions Grok in a technology credit.

Oh, and Fluent Python by Luciano Ramalho, a very popular book about Python, mentions Grok:

Fluent Python: Clear, Concise, and Effective Programming - Page xxiii Martijn Faassen (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some papers that discuss Grok in some detail:

Worth, David, and Justin Collins. "Leveraging Convention over Configuration for Static Analysis in Dynamic Languages." G 2 reHack 012: 27.

Cerjak, Jure. Razvoj spletnih aplikacij s platformo Zope. Diss. Univerza v Ljubljani, 2010.

Lederer, Dominique. "zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades” Master of Science in Engineering”/” Diplomingenieur (FH)”."

Foglia Ardila, Andrés Felipe. "Comparación del desarrollo de un aplicativo web entre los lenguajes de programación Python y Java." (2014).

There are plenty of other papers that mention Grok as a Python web framework in a more throwaway way, but that still establishes some level of notability. A good way to filter papers for this specific Grok is to look for "grok zope" or "grok python" (the former works better than the latter). Martijn Faassen (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find links about Elon's version of Grok. I'm not sure what's given for sourcing is enough. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Chou

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Several sources are paid content farms or passing mentions and most were published in the month before the page was published. Page has been speedy deleted before by Deepfriedokra for WP:G11. Seems like PR.}} Milkywaythegodfather (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Taiwan, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears PROMO. [31], is an un-sourced byline written by staff, in a small local newspaper. Nothing I find for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the fishy content farms as sources and the previous speedy deletion is a red flag for [WP:PROMO]] in my opinion. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails any semblance of WP:GNG suitable for WP:ANYBIO. No valid secondary sourcing. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NBIO, promotional in nature. These sorts of hustle culture marketing people rarely receive meaningful coverage except as a cherry-picked illustrative example for one of those vapid "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" puff pieces and are usually not notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though I agree the page is thin, not referenced well, and that it may not seem like a strong page, Chou is a well-known member of his business community who surpasses the notability requirement in my opinion. I will seek other articles to repair the page. KChao1964 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2025

Barron Trump

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not convinced the arguments raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (3rd nomination) have been properly resolved. The sources are still primarily about his relation to the rest of the Trump family, and there is exactly one new bit of information from since the june 2024 AfD - that his father's cryptocurrency project named him a "financial visionary", not exactly an independent conformation of notability. I suggest that have a restored redirect and be salted for the time being. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the AfC reviewer who promoted the article, I note that there has been substantial coverage of the subject since the previous AfD, and this is not abating. A substantial number of citations in the article postdate that discussion, and if this were any other subject, GNG would be abundantly satisfied without question by the degree of coverage, irrespective of achievements documented. BD2412 T 17:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated above. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as sufficient coverage from new sources have been given since the previous Afd and are present in the article, now passes WP:GNG. Sources have shifted away from his familial ties and more towards himself, and I see no reason why this trend will not continue in the future. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll copy what I said in my comment on the draft.

The main question in my mind is whether there's been a change since the last AfD that addresses the main issues brought up by redirect !voters.

Looking at the AfD, the two issues were "independent notability" and "low-profile individuals". In other words, 1) is Barron Trump only notable for being Donald Trump's son 2) and is Barron Trump avoiding publicity?

Since the AfD, I think both have been addressed by Barron's cryptocurrencies projects and his affiliation with influencers.

Specifically, 1) appeared to be interpreted at that AfD as requiring the coverage to be meaningful even if Barron wasn't Donald's son. For example, multiple redirect !voters discussed Barron's status as an RNC political delegate, which wouldn't have received coverage if Barron was a random person.

However, after the AfD, WP:SIGCOV has been created/added. A cited New York Times article says Barron Trump is now treated as an adviser by his father and as something of a next-generation MAGA mascot by his father’s supporters[32], we see discussions of his role in Trump's decision to go on the Joe Rogan experience as well as being credited as the mastermind behind his father’s push into the “manosphere” media and finally credited for Andrew Tate's release from a Romanian prison.[33] In other words, Barron is now engaging in political activity within the Trump administration. Would he have that role if he wasn't Trump's son? Maybe not, but the main criticism is that (quoting Mangoe) the material is stuff which for the most part could be written about any recent high school grad. For instance, Donald saying that he didn't think Barron had yet had a girlfriend is the type of coverage that doesn't satisfy 1).

Likewise, 2) appears to be addressed as well. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual gives examples of high-profile activities as willingly participating in the political sphere or providing commercial endorsements. It's already shown that Barron has started being politically active by engaging with influencers. But Barron is also involved with and endorsing World Liberty Financial. He is currently listed as a "Web3 Ambassador" [34] and formerly as a "DeFi visionary".[35] All of this coverage occurred after the AfD.

To summarize, Barron Trump is a marginal adviser in the Trump administration. He pushed for Andrew Tate to be freed from a Romanian prison and the Joe Rogan podcast, in addition to his role in Trump's crypto adventures. That removes him from the WP:LPI policy and gives him non-inherited notability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as suggested in the last AfD. Nothing's changed in the last 9 months that makes this person more notable. You can only find mentions of him in relation to other Trump things. "Prez Trump did xyz and Barron was there" are about the extent of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG."
GNG (not a complete list):
- Barron Trump will be first son in White House since JFK Jr. (CNN)
- Barron Trump takes classmates to meet the US President on White House tour (The Independent)
- Two Trump Children Escape the Traditional Spectacle as School Begins (NYT)
- Barron Trump Skipped His Father Donald Trump's Final Speech as President (People)
- Barron Trump to attend exclusive school near Mar-a-Lago (AP)
- Why Barron Trump could be key to Donald winning back the White House (Daily Telegraph)
.. It goes on and on like that many more. You get the idea, he is famous, the press covers his every move. As INHERIT says, it doesn't matter if is solely known for his relationship with his father, what matters is that someone is famous (notable per GNG). -- GreenC 16:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons provided by @BD2412. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Chess. Normally, I'd find myself in the oppose camp of children/young adults of political/celebrity figures. However, notwithstanding that Barron Trump seems to value his privacy (sort of), he has taken an active role in his father's presidential campaign, business empire, and government. The article currently cites substantive profiles of him, not just "Prez Trump did XYZ and Barron was there." voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i think this article should stay. The rest of trump family has an article, even if they're not even involved with politics. why shouldn't barron have it GloryToCalifornia (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are better rationales than that in the discussion already. BD2412 T 23:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Oaktree b. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand why different rules seem to apply to Barron than do Tiffany or children of other presidents. There is clearly plenty of source material about him and he's an adult now. _pbp 00:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Family of Donald Trump#Barron Trump per Oaktree b. The reasons given for redirection in the last AFD still hold. While there may have been additional reporting since the previous AFD, the nature of the reporting is the same. He is only reported about because of Donald Trump things. If Donald Trump didn't have the profile they do, we wouldn't know about Barron, the article wouldn't exist and we wouldnt' be having this repetitive discussion. Notability is not inherited. TarnishedPath^talk 03:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Part 1, pinging @12xii, @28bytes, @Abductive, @Abzeronow, @AirshipJungleman29, @AndyTheGrump, @Bagumba, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Berchanhimez, @Hinnk, @Mangoe, @Jordgette, @12xii, @Pawnkingthree, @DFlhb, @Levivich, @Soni, @Lamona, @HadesTTW, @JayBeeEll, @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, @Floquenbeam, @Carrite and @28bytes as editors involved in the last AFD discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 03:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part 2, pinging @JoelleJay, @Frank Anchor, @JPxG, @Neo Purgatorio, @Zaereth, @Curbon7, @Esolo5002, @SarekOfVulcan, @Iadmc, @Riposte97, @Squeeps10, @Generalissima, @Pharaoh496, @William Allen Simpson, @GreenC, @Fram, @Bagumba, @Mdann52@Skyshifter, @Bruxton, @Queen of Hearts, @Janitoalevic, @Soni, @ElijahPepe, @Yngvadottir and @Novem Linguae as editors involved in the prevoius AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3, pinging @Schazjmd, @Serial Number 54129, @David Fuchs, @Turini2, @Beeblebrox, @Launchballer, @Tamzin, @Nathannah and @Valereee as editors involved in the previous AFD. Appologies if I've missed anyone. TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi fix ping (rename). charlotte ^👸♥ 04:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Dan arndt, @Robert McClenon and @Chess as editors involved at Talk:Barron Trump#Comments left by AfC reviewers. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ping received. Will review in the near future (within 6 days while this AFD is open). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote from the last discussion to Keep. While his article probably could use a trim for someone who doesn't have any social media or any political ambitions yet, there has been some notable news articles that suggest he has done things besides exist as one of Trump's kids. The rumors that he got his father to court influencers is notable as RS generally argue that such actions helped drive out the Gen Z turnout in the election. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rumors that he got his father to court influencers is notable as RS generally argue that such actions helped drive out the Gen Z turnout in the election.

It still all goes back to his father. If his father wasn't who he was then the article wouldn't exist. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still all goes back to his father. If his father wasn't who he was then the article wouldn't exist. At what point does this logic cease to be applicable? Do I have to demonstrate a counterfactual scenario in which Donald Trump never ran for president and then prove that Barron Trump would've had the natural talents to become an influential adviser in the Jeb Bush administration?

Your argument would be more convincing if you could explain what Barron has to do in order to become notable in his own right, and why he has not achieved that. For example, having a significant advisory role in the Trump administration or campaign would make Barron notable in a similar way to Donald Trump Jr. Why does his masterminding of Andrew Tate's release or the Joe Rogan interview not meet that threshold? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would he have to do? Be independently notable. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wikt:conclusory argument because it doesn't explain why independent notability has not been established. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a keep last time around charlotte ^👸♥ 04:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not much I can do if you all want to keep this, but the fact that we’re pretending there’s such an “office” as “first son of the United States” tells me all I need to know about how desperately some people want this to be an article. Could someone not on a phone get rid of that idiocy at least? -Floquenbeam (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Floquenbeam, done. Thanks for pointing that rediculousness out. TarnishedPath^talk 05:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump, for the same reason as last time. Every source mentions Barron in the context of his father. He has done nothing to be independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." -- GreenC 16:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, obviously. From the lead, he is a student (not in any way a notable student) and a political advisor (according to his parents only, and even then hardly a,remarkable one). Why are we having this article? Fram (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on keeping or deleting, but I do find odd complaints that mentions of him being influential to presidential actions include the name of the president he is influencing. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the increased coverage of his political acrivities. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's the POTUS' son. That makes him notable enough — Iadmc ♫^talk 08:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iadmc: Oh wow. This is the very rare occasion when someone falls afoul of that otherwise often incorrectly used essay WP:INHERIT which says, in effect, do not make arguments during AfD where you claim someone is notable based solely on who their parents are. It's very rare to see it in the wild. 99% of the time people who claim INHERIT don't understand the essay. They believe there mere fact someone has notable parents is enough to disqualify them, but that's not what the essay says. Rather it says don't make that argument ie. you also need to cite reliable sources that show notable ie. GNG. Do you believe this article passes WP:GNG? -- GreenC 16:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect - I maintain my previous comment "Other than them no longer being a child, what makes this article notable as a standalone when this information better sits in the Family of DJT article? I certainly don't see it."Turini2 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if Donald Trump did not exist - would any of Barron's activities or actions that are not connected to DJT meet notability? In my opinion, no. So therefore, a redirect is the best solution. Turini2 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Turini2: In that case we would be discussing a college student who reportedly helped a presidential candidate tap into the youth vote to win election, and had the ear of that president and influenced their policy decisions, and was the subject of a 2,000 word Vanity Fair profile. BD2412 T 15:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Trump's mother later said that he played in an important role in garnering young voters for Donald" - come on, that's hardly a neutral source of that information! Turini2 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, again. His notability hasn't changed; it's still all just stuff that mentions him in passing. Adding more sources and filler to the article doesn't particularly make it more notable. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 12:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mention in passing? Many articles are devoted to him. Just a sample:
- Barron Trump will be first son in White House since JFK Jr. (CNN)
- Barron Trump takes classmates to meet the US President on White House tour (The Independent)
- Two Trump Children Escape the Traditional Spectacle as School Begins (NYT)
- Barron Trump Skipped His Father Donald Trump's Final Speech as President (People)
- Barron Trump to attend exclusive school near Mar-a-Lago (AP)
- Why Barron Trump could be key to Donald winning back the White House (Daily Telegraph)
-- GreenC 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. I see nothing notable in the standalone article that could not be easily contained in the Family article. Little has changed since the previous AfD. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is old enough to have his own article as a son of the President as the other ones. Janitoalevic (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable based on multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Per WP:INHERIT: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. -- GreenC 16:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To basically repeat what I said last time, redirect per WP:BLP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and because of the quality of the material. I cannot, apparently, say this enough: Sourcing alone is not notability. And reading through the article, the material is stuff which for the most part could be written about any recent high school or college grad. If he weren't the former president's son, nobody would know. He has no more history than I do, or than had the acquaintance of mine who happens to be Jay Gould's great*granddaughter. The only interest in him derives from his father. And besides that, it's just simple BLP courtesy not to repeat what is largely gossipy/promotional trash, no matter how "reliable" the source is. In the end, this fails the "why do we care?" test in a big way, since "because we're nosy about famous people's kids" is (a) the actual answer, (b) not satisfying GNG, and (c) baldly in contravention of BLP's letter and spirit. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect not notable person. People only know him because he's the President's son. Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as before; I am not super interested in the question of whether this kid is notable because, as per per WP:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page", and seems obvious to me that (assuming for the sake of argument that he is independently notable) this is one of those cases. Everything interesting that can be said about him makes more sense in the context of his family. --JBL (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a kid anymore... _pbp 18:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to restrict your pedantry to topics on which you might conceivably be correct. --JBL (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's 19 now. He hasn't been a kid for over a year _pbp 20:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am in a bad mood so I will keep my response limited to the incredibly obvious point that the definition of "kid" is "young person, or any child of a parent" and not "person under the age of 18" and leave off any further comment about how pursuing this inane point reflects on you. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can somebody objectively explain to me why Barron Trump should be deleted or redirected but Tiffany Trump should be kept? She's barely in the public eye and her sourcing invariably references her daddy. Both Barron and Tiffany are of age now. NGL, if Barron succeeds in being deleted or redirected, I'm going to start that convo. _pbp 18:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of one article has no bearing on another. For example, neither of Obama's children have a stand-alone article, they both redirect to Family of Barack Obama, so the opposite argument could be used. S0091 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's children have far less media coverage.—ADavidB 18:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe but the question was about the mere existence of another article which is what I addressing. S0091 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091: You didn't actually ANSWER THE QUESTION... What justifies Tiffany having a stand-alone article and no Barron? Lay it out. _pbp 18:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not yell or make demands. I can't tell you why Tiffany has a stand-alone article, nor does it matter that she does. Just like it does not matter if Obama's children have one or not or any other President's children, which was the point I was trying to make. None of it has any bearing on if Barron Trump should or should not have stand-alone article. That is what this AfD will decide. S0091 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there's no rational reason why the articles should be treated differently, and the Barron one should be kept. Got it. _pbp 20:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to hang your hat on WP:OSE that's your prerogative. S0091 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect passing mentions in connection to family. WP:NOTINHERITED. ValarianB (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like a very large amount people know and can recognize him as a person, enough to warrant an article. ClovisBarnhopper (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I am not convinced that an association between Trump and his father confers notability, and this article must be decided on its merits based on WP:GNG. As of this comment, Trump is only significant because he purportedly accrued voters for his father. If Trump were not born to a famous figure, that would not be sufficient. The "breadth" of coverage is quite narrow, evidenced by his limited career experience. However, I find that he is a recognizable figure and a subsection in an article would not be appropriate for the coverage he has received. I will provide a more thorough decision later. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Educational Institutions

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

Only routine news type references on the page. Nothing much to suggest this non-degree-awarding college is notable. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Karnataka. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as long-term multiple-project hoax vandalism. I've just let the Simple English Wikipedia know that this is back. Wikiquote has had this, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

Alexander Lukison

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alexander Lukinson and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alexander Luka. Long-term abuse that had, until recently, usually been restricted only to draft space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Politicians, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what? This person is real Dih250 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This person is real I have his IMDb website on the link and all the information. What else do you need Dih250 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Note https://the-politicianss.fandom.com/wiki/Alexander_Lukison , where person has same year of birth and cousin, but now is a politician and founder of a political party (founded at age 19). IMDb entry was written by "Alex", and has no corroboration. Also note deletion notice for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lukison_2024.jpg . Deleted drafts referred to above are about the same person: Age, relative, and birthplaces have shared commonalities. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably is fake, sources I pull up in Gnews are all from Indonesia or elsewhere, in other languages. Literally nothing in English, about this English person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maha Singh's Invasions of Jammu

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

This article fails WP:GNG & there is no WP:SIGCOV in sources for these minor plundering raids/conflicts. This article also treats these two sackings as one conflict which is pseudohistorical and not backed by sources. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This battle lacks significant coverage. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh–Wahhabi War

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

This is a pseudo-historical fringe article, there is no conflict such as the Sikh–Wahhabi War. This article is misrepresenting and confusing the Barelvi movement for Wahhabism and is compiling disparate conflicts between ethnic groups as a singular religious conflict. No scholars support this narrative. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Nightclub

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

Orphan article authored in 2013, with an unaddressed maintenance tag for lack of notability also dating to 2013. Created and overwhelmingly most heavily edited (3/4 of its content) by an author with a conflict of interest. Subject venue closed in 2019[36] and is therefore unlikely ever to receive coverage that would confer notability. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every nightclub that has ever existed. Damon Killian (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added sources rapidly; the place, as one source indicates, has "a storied history" and had various names. It's still existing as Domaine (https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/a-new-domaine-takes-over-opera-nightclub-space) but even if it hadn't reopened, an article about this place of historical interest has merit. Thanks.-Mushy Yank. 19:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. My !vote to keep is only because it has significant coverage. I actually disdain this sort of influencer celebrity culture club. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than You Bay Bay

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

AEW tag team where they wrestled together for only two months. One singles main event at All In is not good enough for an article. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support no notable tag team with just a few wp:routine mentions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cage of Agony

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

Pretty much the same content as in Mogul Embassy and Gates of Agony. Suggest redirect to either of them. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table-oriented programming

AfDs for this article:

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

Neither of the two existing refs mention the subject. Searches turned up lots of mentions, mostly on unreliable sources. Could not find any in-depth coverage of the sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Created here on Wikipedia directly by TimNelson (talk · contribs) at the same time as a Tim Nelson created https://wayland.github.io/table-oriented-programming/TOP/Introduction/What.xml that is the same thing. It is a violation of our no original research policy to use Wikipedia as a direct publication platform for a new thesis. It's not the same as the last time, true, Girth Summit, but it is equally as vague and woolly. Commenters on lobste.rs (that weren't those acknowledging a connection to the author) noted that it could cover practically anything where a table was somehow involved, and that's nowhere near being the level of peer review and acknowledgement by the world at large that this needs. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an unsourced essay of synthesis and original research. From Day One, Wikipedia has never published original research. There are plenty of other places to publish this content, but not here. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sibongiseni Shabalala

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

Only notable as one member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo and poorly sourced for a long time. Shoudl just be a list of members in that group's article and provide brief mention there. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Sibongiseni Shabalala has some importance as the son of the group’s founder, but I agree with the nominator on a lack of notability outside the group. I can find nothing reliable or descriptive on his side band and their albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thamsanqa Shabalala

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

Only notable as a member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo and poorly sourced for over a decade. Could just be mentioned in the main article with other people only notable for their connection to that group. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Thamsanqa Shabalala has some prominence as the group’s current lead singer, though the nominator is correct about lack of notability outside the group. I can find little reliable coverage of his side band and their albums. The events that led to this gentleman being promoted to lead singer can be covered at the group’s article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thulani Shabalala

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

Only notable as a member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo and no significant coverage of them independently from that group. Poor sourcing. Should just be a mention among a list of members at Ladysmith Black Mambazo. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. The nominator is correct about lack of notability outside the group, and his side group and there albums seemed to escape the notice of reliable music media. The comings and goings of other members around when this gentleman joined or was promoted can be described at the group’s article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Zindani High School

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

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found only self-published and/or indiscriminate sources, and one sentence on a local government website.[37] Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. If there were an article about Nimaichara Union, where Samaj is located, I would redirect there, but there isn't. Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searched for school in news and Google, could not find any reference or articles. Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libnan (Lydia Canaan song)

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

The article on Libnan (Lydia Canaan song) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for music-related topics as outlined in WP:NOTMUSIC. The song has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and its only notable mention is its use in a Lebanon tourism commercial. This does not satisfy the requirements for standalone articles, such as having won a major award or being an official anthem of a notable entity, as described in WP:NOTABILITY and WP:MUSIC.

Additionally, the article appears to violate WP:PROMO by adopting a promotional tone, emphasizing the song's association with the commercial and awards without independent verification. Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion is explicitly prohibited by WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV. Allowing this article sets a precedent where every soundtrack for every tourism commercial could be eligible for inclusion, which undermines Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and encyclopedic content.

For these reasons, deletion is warranted to uphold Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality. Mesoutopia (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lebanon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only coverage I can pull up is social media or streaming sites. Sources in the article are more about the promotional campaign than about the song. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arizona and Washington, D.C., hunger strike

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

As was predicted by delete !voters in 2021 and 2022, this event has not had any persistent coverage. I cannot find news coverage since the strike ended; it is not mentioned in articles about other acts of youth protest or otherwise used as a point of comparison. All I find googling it is tons of other hunger strikes that do not have articles, because hunger strikes, while dramatic, are a not-infrequent act of political protest, and usually do not pass WP:GNG, let alone the higher bar of WP:NEVENT. (Morbid but true, usually the thing that makes a hunger strike pass those bars is someone dying, which did not happen in this case.) Perhaps there's room for a single sentence at For the People Act (currently neither that nor John Lewis Voting Rights Act mention this), but not for an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only news coverage, no indication this has lasting prominence or has been used as a WP:CASESTUDY. I'm not convinced this should be mentioned in the articles about the bills unless sources about the bills' history specifically mention this (per WP:MINORASPECT). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think a simple Redirect to the For the People Act with a mention of the strike would be preferable than deleting it outright. Article is well sourced, but don't think it merits a standalone article on its own. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of lasting effects or persistent coverage. The title is long and not intuitive, so not a plausible redirect. Astaire (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that having previously been an article would still make the title plausible, since it might be linked from somewhere off-wiki, or someone might remember the title or have it bookmarked or search. The article got 400 views in 2024, which is low but nontrivial. The real question, for redirection versus deletion, is whether there's something to redirect to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride (professional wrestling)

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

WWE stable lasting around a year and the content is pretty much same in Bobby Lashley and Street Profits. Suggest blank and redirect to Bobby Lashley#The Pride (2023–2024) since mostly revolves around him. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Lashley. I was thinking to nominate it for a long time. No in-deep coverage of the stable, just WP:ROUTINE results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaz Jamirun Noor High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Was kept at 2015 AfD per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Since the February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found nothing that would meet WP:NSCHOOL. If there were an article about Lakshmansree Union, where Janigoan is located, I would redirect there, but there isn't. Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a thorough search, I only managed to find sources with very little mention of the school itself. No sources even when doing a regional search for Bangladesh. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CCC. Our standards for schools have evolved, as has mine. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of NXT

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

Short-lived WWE NXT stable that does not require an article. Suggest redirecting to Pat McAfee. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Pat. No in-deep coverage about the stable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Scholastic School & College

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

PROD was contested in 2012 because "verified secondary schools are generally regarded to be notable". Since the February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found only job postings and a blurb saying Major Gen. Khaled Al-Mamun was guest of honor at their annual sports day.[38] Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Potentially could be redirected to Jahangirabad Cantonment (where it is located) or List of colleges affiliated to the Rajshahi Education Board. Worldbruce (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom , Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Unicorn Gundam

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

Boldly merged and BLARed this to Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn but was reverted. I do not think this statue warrants a standalone article. ~~There is barely any meaningful content here;~~ the article more closely resembles an entry in a travel guide for prospective tourists than an encyclopedia article, and the topic can be amply covered within the article about the series (edit: as I discussed later in the AfD following additional edits to the article, I think it would fit best as a section of DiverCity Tokyo Plaza) or on the Cultural impact of Gundam page (or both). silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: The article has certainly improved, but I still think that the content in its current state would be better served as a subsection of another article where the topic can be given more thorough context.) silviaASH (inquire within) 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Travel and tourism, Popular culture, and Japan. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and HEY. Re: "There is barely any meaningful content here" -- WP:SOFIXIT! This nomination is a statement about the current state of the article, not the amount of coverage the subject has received. I'm not convinced WP:BEFORE was completed and this should probably have started with an article talk page discussion. I've added quite a few sources to the article, which should be expanded and improved, not deleted. I also see there are quite a few non-English sources, if any multilingual editors are able to review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did look up the subject before nominating- I didn't see an extraordinary amount of coverage. While the subject does clearly satisfy GNG, I still don't think it meets WP:PAGEDECIDE, even after the improvements that have been made. I just don't think there's that much to say about the topic that can't slot neatly into a section on Cultural impact of Gundam or DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, both articles which themselves could use some improvement. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the subject does clearly satisfy GNG" is a reason to keep the article. Instead of worrying about how to update multiple articles about the topic, I think it makes more sense to focus on updating this article, so I'll keep workin' on it! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I went and looked at the sources that have been added more closely, and while it's evident that there's more to talk about in regards to the statue than I may have initially thought, I still think that all of this information would be better off merged into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article. Many of the currently cited sources ([39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]) only mention the statue trivially, in a long list of other recommended tourist spots. They say it's cool and everything (don't get me wrong, the statue is very cool and I'd personally love to go see it), but don't really address it in detail, so I don't think all of these qualify as WP:SIGCOV. The sources which do address the topic significantly ([52], [53], [54], [55]) do shed more light on the creation and establishment of the statue as an attraction and the motives for its construction, but I think all of this information could be summed up in about a paragraph within the DiverCity article. Two of the sources are just mirrors of one another ([56], [57]).

Finally, the last couple of citations ([58], [59]) don't really talk about the statue itself so much as they talk about the place where the statue happens to be. The SoraNews source, in particular, primarily uses the Unicorn Gundam as the lead to talk about the DiverCity Plaza as a whole, and its many Gundam attractions. This is also the case with several of the 13 citations that mention the statue trivially- they do it within sentences (sometimes even within the same sentence) of bringing it up as the main attraction at the DiverCity Plaza. The headline of the paragraph in this source, just to name one of them, says as the heading of the paragraph in which the statue is acknowledged, Gundam-themed mall opened in Tokyo. This is a clear and consistent pattern even in the sources which acknowledge the statue non-trivially- they primarily discuss it as the centerpiece of DiverCity, and its numerous other Gundam-related attractions.

This is why I think the statue isn't independently notable. It isn't ever discussed independently of the mall. For this reason, I think it would be best (again, per WP:PAGEDECIDE), to merge the contents of the article into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article, and discuss it as the primary attraction of that area. Being discussed in a standalone article means that readers are missing the context of the statue's ultimate purpose, which is to attract people to the mall and hopefully get them to purchase a Gunpla. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We'll have to agree to disagree, but for now I've added several additional news sources specifically focused on the statue and I'll continue to tinker at the article as I have time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, which already has a paragraph on this. This is a statue at a shopping mall with no sign that this is a significant monument. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure if we have a notability guideline for statues or art installations or attractions (though, if we do, I'd definitely like to know about it), but this likewise seems to me to not be independently notable of the DiverCity Plaza. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd say since WP:ARTIST has standards like "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or "The person's work has become a significant monument," then notability for an individual work of art would have similar standards. This statue is not a significant new concept, doesn't display significant new techniques, isn't a significant monument, etc. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily meets notability requirements with lots of coverage in RS. APK hi :-) (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article seems quite underdeveloped. Is there any reason these articles couldn't be merged? I think this needs someone to check through Japanese sources to establish the notability of both subjects. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per APK, easily meets GNG and HEY. Lots of adequate sourcing on the page. Seems the fact that it is exhibited at a shopping mall is being used as a negative of some kind. Many statues are in malls, airports, etc., public places where people gather are fine venues for artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Been thinking I may have made a mistake in opening an AfD (I jumped to that thinking it was necessary because of the reversed BLAR) and I should have opened a merge proposal discussion instead. I still don't think the article meets PAGEDECIDE, but I ought to have given more consideration to if AfD was the appropriate venue for that concern. Anyway, at this point I think I don't support deletion in any case, with the clear improvements the article has received, this should be either kept or merged. If this AfD closes as keep I'll wait a bit for development to happen and perhaps consider discussing a merge down the line if I feel that my criticisms remain relevant. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such a full and improved page shouldn't be merged, as the only reason for a merge would be its location and not judging the artwork on its own merits. Commendable comment, not every nominator (far from it) will reconsider their nom during a useful discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)a[reply]

2007 World Twenty20 records and statistics

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

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

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

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

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

Per precedents set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 FIFA World Cup statistics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup statistics. WP:NOTSTATS. Wikipedia is not a statistical database. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: the title has statistics only, but the pages are actually statistics and records as well. In the previous AfDs linked above, they were cases of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and important records already being in the parent articles - none of which applies here. Everything in these pages are well-sourced. Vestrian24Bio 16:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only 2024 Men's T20 World Cup statistics for above reasons; Redirect/Delete others as they are a clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 16:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abednego Mazibuko

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

Person is only notable for being a member of the larger group and there is no significant coverage of him individually. Not notable himself, and this should be deleted, perhaps just a redirect to the larger group's page. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Abednego Mazibuko has some more prominence as a 50-year member and close relative of the group’s founder, but the nominator is correct about lack of notability outside the group. The comings and goings of other members around when this gentleman joined or was promoted can be described at the group’s article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rehaa Khann

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

Fails WP:GNG Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero evidence of notability, the sources consist of a photo gallery, a press release, and a music video. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: References do not support subject's notability as an actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS. B-Factor (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as actress, model and producer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Krstić

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

He played 31 minutes of professional league before going down to lower tiers. Corresponding article on Serbian Wikipedia has many references, but even secondary sources are just passing mentions in routine announcements, if I could read them correctly. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkari Expedition 1916

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

The article relies on a single primary source, and its tone is unbalanced. For a long time, no additional sources were added, and it is difficult to find references for such a minor battle. Although the Assyrians retreated during this battle, it is still considered a victory because the source comes from a book written by one of the Assyrian leaders who participated in the war. However, the part stating that the Assyrians retreated has been removed. Here is the old version of the article [1]. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The single source is not a primary source - this indicates a misunderstanding of what a primary source is. Moreover, it is irrelevant at AfD whether an article relies on primary sources (completely acceptable), uses only a single source (not preferred, but okay), is non-neutral or incomplete (because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) - this indicates a misunderstanding of this process. That being the case, the impulse is to toss this nomination without further ado. A google search turns up multiple references. [60] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye7 note that GNG does generally require multiple secondary sources: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Also note WP:OR: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The book describes itself as "first-hand", which suggests that it's a primary source (though I have not looked at the source itself so this could be misleading). But none of this matters because it looks like it's self-published. The article should be kept if those references you've added give significant coverage, but it's hard to tell from WP:GOOGLEHITS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The mistake that many newbies make is assuming that the sources required by GNG to establish notability must be those used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Possibly to the Assyrian volunteers or the Persian campaign (World War I). There is a lot of information about the genocide and the overall fighting in that region of the world, but I am not finding anything referring to this as an Expedition. Moritoriko (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak consensus at present that there is material to preserve, unclear whether as stand alone, or elsewhere, no clarity on target if elsewhere. Further specific source analysis and clarity on possible target would be helpful in developing the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Brooklyn Park TBM-700 crash

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, and Minnesota. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 30." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, single fatality incident as confirmed by emergency responders on scene, see ASN database for updated narrative. A crash in a highly populated area does not make such crash notable as we shouldnt base articles of what coulda or woulda happened. ASN Database Lolzer3k 14:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is just like the Learjet fiasco that happened in Philadelphia, A plane crashed into a highly populated area mind you, just like the learjet in Philly. The page still needs to be updated with info, and needs to be currently updated, as an investigation into this crash is currently going on. I also agree with the people claiming that this article is "too soon" but just like the learjet crash, an investigation is going on. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just like the Philadelphia crash though as the plane was a medical jet with six occupants including a pediatric kid. It also crashed in a populated area but with a fatality and dozens of injuries. Also, with every plane crash there's an investigation, so that's not a reason to keep it. Plane crashes with a single fatality happen everyday, populated area or not, without articles. This one is no exception. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Note above arguement by user Shaniapickle seems to be a case of WP:OSE, invalidating their vote. Lolzer3k 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was WP:TOOSOON and the creator has a history of making articles too soon. I only made it cause there was a proposed deletion warning and as of now though, there is more information and no survivors, which might make it be able to stay. If the pilot is the only occupant though, we should delete the article. -Bloxzge 025 ツ — Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait and see with more information if this is going to be significant or not.Lucthedog2 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree since there were no survivors out of the plane that has a capacity of about 7. I only started this when the article was WP:TOOSOON and when a proposed deletion nomination was posted.

Delete. Aviation accidents and incidents keep happening (https://www.ntsb.gov/Pages/monthly.aspx) and a fair proportion get reported on some news. The entries that do deserve articles are those which are landmark and follow in radical safety procedure or technology changes (e.g. UA232, or read https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/inadequacies-and-a-misunderstanding/ etc). Waiting with a non-notable article promotes speculations which I feel unhealthy same as explained eg at https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2020/april/pilot/safety-spotlight-lessons-from-tragedy BACbKA (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTTOOSOON. Coverage by independent news sources. The fact that aviation incidents keep happening and reported on does not negate its notability. — ERcheck (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National level news coverage, including CNN and ABC News. — ERcheck (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was WP:TOOSOON as the creator made the article within an hour of the crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @ERcheck

Waleed (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan in the ABU TV Song Festival

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

Originally created when the event was announced in a Eurovision Song Contest-style format for each participating country, however this event has not gained nearly the same level of media attention or general awareness, and thus I believe individual country articles outlining participation in these events do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidance. Specifically I refer to WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, as from what I can see coverage of these events is limited to fan media and promotional releases. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same series of country articles for the ABU Song Festivals:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Afghanistan. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tunisia, Brunei, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, India, Turkey, and Australia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources for these articles are either primary sources (the ABU) or Eurovision-related sites that include passing mention of ABU participants (since the idea is that these events would be appealing to ESC fans). Even with that, the information was largely reformatted from press releases. As the nominator noted, these events never gained traction nor are they competitive like their inspiration's format. The yearly occurrences (ABU Radio Song Festival 2012, ABU TV Song Festival 2012, etc, - both GAs!) appear to have enough coverage, but I'm not sure what's accomplished by having a list of the handful of songs that each country 'sent' to be showcases (not voted on by the public). It's an interesting event, but these pages are remnants of an attempt to treat it like its much larger/more impactful, which was a product of being part of the former WP:ESC and its page creation structure (now deprecated for non-competitive events). These pages could be replaced by a single article "List of ABU Radio Song Festival songs" or whathaveyou, but that's probably the extent of it given where notability stands and I wouldn't make this deletion contingent on its creation (or an alternative). Grk1011 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A merge as suggested by Grk1011 might be useful. It could probably fit on ABU Radio Song Festival rather than a new page, that's not a very exhaustive article. CMD (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ABU Radio Song Festival : as WP:Alternative to deletion. Was a check of sources in the language(s) of every country performed? Because that is what should have been done... -Mushy Yank. 18:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukashenko family

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

Fails WP:GNG, there are fewer sources. Absolutiva (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Belarus. Absolutiva (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alexander Lukashenko#Personal life, where there is actually quality prose about the topic, instead of this quasi-stub. There is no doubt in my mind that Alexander is the primary topic within the family. Geschichte (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Agree that this should be blanked/redirected to the main article on Lukashenko. This page makes it sound like they are just a normal political family and not dictators.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems right. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mureropodia

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

It’s been classed as synonymous with Caryosyntrips since 2017.^[2] I’d probably suggest merging it with Caryosyntrips. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Medical research and academic papers led and contributed by Dr. Keneth Hall"
^ Pates, Stephen; Daley, Allison C.; Ortega-Hernández, Javier (March 2018). "Reply to Comment on "Aysheaia prolata from the Utah Wheeler Formation (Drumian, Cambrian) is a frontal appendage of the radiodontan Stanleycaris" with the formal description of Stanleycaris". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 63 (1): 105–110. doi:10.31233/osf.io/ek4z6.

So why not do that, then? Project:Articles for deletion is for when the administrator deletion tool is needed. It's in the name. There is no deletion tool involved in the article merger process. Uncle G (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Wrong venue, but thank you to IC1101-Capinatator for shedding light on the issue! Geschichte (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge away. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, do the merge, it shouldn't have been brought here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikhani Group of Companies

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sources are not reliable and independent. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Pakistan, and United States of America. GrabUp - Talk 08:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed content from prior to semi-protection.

What do u mean they arent reliable there are so many reliabe sources in it. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article shouldn't be deleted because the company and owner both are notable. WP:N Zaidtessori (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is does not make any sense. There are sources listed above and the page had sources and add on's that it seems others are deleting. does being a buissnessman & constable in the us not make a person notable. wow 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has many reliable sources in it. i have seen wikipedia articles with less than 4 unreliable sources and you guys didnt delete them. this article is about a company owned by a notable person named ali sheikhani. Ahmadalir (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is notable & falls under the criteria of notability WP:N Davidmathew11123 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources look notable to me. sources like news channels are notable like these https://katychristianmagazine.com/2023/12/06/meet-police-officer-and-self-made-businessman-ali-sheikhani-republican-candidate-for-fort-bend-county-constable-pct-3/ https://uspto.report/TM/98158126/FTK20230830173009/ there are a lot more sources that are reliable and notable so this article shouldn't be deleted. Mrbeast221 (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are reliable and independent. Janghirbutt (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draftspace: Brother instead can someone it to a draft so i will work on it and then submit it for afc draft. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:5DB4:CFC1:D03F:EE02 (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article shouldn’t be deleted as it has some reliable sources instead it should get the tag of more citations needed. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F953:498E:34F9:B100 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has a few Reliable Sources. Article can rely on those sources. shouldn’t get deleted instead get a tag about needing more citations. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:9:9C:6201:76B0 (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has reliable citations shouldn’t get deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:441:F5D2:FB86:14FC (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources look independent and reliable. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:856C:CC4D:E3C6:CFB9 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article Falls under notability it shouldn’t be deleted. 2600:4040:2012:DD00:F4C7:2A79:AC6D:4C0A (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has independent and reliable sources . Falls under notability WP:NCORP 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying my best to improve it. i dont know what the decision would be but i will try my best thanks, 141.156.233.91 (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete: Ridiculous amount of ref-bombing of nearly all useless references - scrapers, junk sites, passing mentions. The very few that have even moderately indepth coverage are churnalism or from regional sources only. Ravensfire (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a few mentions and press releases (churnalism) but none of them cover this group in detail beyond routine coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahador Arshadi

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

Contested PROD; absence of independent reliable sources covering this individual. All sources are interviews with the subject. C 679 07:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. C 679 07:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The seven (extremely similar) interviews don't provide any information about Arshadi himself. The article cited next to his birth date doesn't even contain his birth date. --Iiii I I I (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent WP:SIGCOV that I could find. The stub is pretty promotional too. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lianna Rebolledo

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

PROD'd this back in 2023, more citations were added and tag was removed but I don't think they're reliable/independent enough to give her notability. GraziePrego (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, Latin America, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 23 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 05:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. It isn't sourced very well right now and the sources in English are pro-life sources that may not be independent to give her notability. If you search for sources in Spanish there are reliable news organizations reporting on her though. N3rsti (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osagie Osarenkhoe

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP: ANYBIO. All the sources are either not reliable or not independent. The awards too could not help either because they are just run of the mills Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCER, this is still up and coming though, so I expect some coverage in the future. But for now, no. The awards are vanity and not do count towards notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The recognition section has notable awards that has been or been nominated for so they meet WP:ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Perkins

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

Only independent sources I can find are ones that mention her in passing. Created over a declined AfC in 2015 by a single-purpose account editing about Perkins and her publishing company. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously non-notable subject, promotional BLP. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Previous AfD from 2014 only considered mentions in news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is written just, disastrously, but there are some non-news sources. It may however need to be "eventified" or shifted scope. not sure, because the notability seems to be mixed between the crime, her conviction, and elements of her as a person which is why this case is notable, so I think it may be the best choice to write it as a biography. However I would not object to someone nuking most of this page because we should not be using FindLaw on a BLP!!

There are several pages of discussion on her using her as a case study in the academic book The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio, mentions in Women and Capital Punishment in the United States a brief mention in [61], probably more PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some in this law book as well [62] though not sure how useful that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I removed everything cited to FindLaw. I think the sourcing above is enough, so I'd vote keep. I would advise it not be moved because with given how this is covered (an immense focus on her personal life leading up to her actions and guilt) this makes the most sense and we have latitude on how to structure articles. There is a lot of newspaper coverage as well which is less important for showing notability but helps flesh it out PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Patriot Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or half a percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The news sources given are routine coverage that neither focus on the party nor describe it in detail. All the other sources are standard governmental reports that do not establish the party's notability. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (National Post, Vancouver Sun, Vernon Morning Star, Penticton Western News). The article is not "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion" as the party is long defunct. I started the article, but have no connection to the party or its organizers, and have never lived in British Columbia. Ground Zero | t 01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps the automated notice template described the article as "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion", but certainly that is not the argument I am making. I contend that the coverage in those papers is minor and not in-depth, a comparison being the creation of articles for every failed candidate mentioned in those same articles. Yue🌙 18:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no template anywhere saying anything like that. Templates of that sort are not automated, anyway. They are placed by actual human beings. Uncle G (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Routine mentions of a party contesting an election are not in-depth, substantive coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evrim Ağacı

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The most I could find is receiving a grant from the European Society for Evolutionary Biology and some blog posts. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Turkey. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Torrez

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, BLP issues, etc. can't really find coverage past 2008. I don't think we should have articles on crimes like this indefinitely. This seems to only be a passing reference. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, and Missouri. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Lord Mountbutter (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWS. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aliia Rozа

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

Cannot find anything significant in a WP:BEFORE. The sources on the current page are basically a rehash of her being on a podcast telling her story. CNMall41 (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Russia, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levy

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

This article does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Wikipedia evaluates notability primarily through two pathways: the general notability guideline (GNG), which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources with strong editorial oversight, and subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG), which are tailored to specific fields like academics, athletes, or entertainers.

In this case, the article appears to concern a religious figure, not an academic, so WP:NACADEMIC is not applicable. The more relevant SNG is WP:NPERSON, which still requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that are not directly affiliated with the subject.

After reviewing the sources:

CheckCompany provides a minimal corporate profile with no substantial coverage. (Too sparse)
ReformJudaism.org.uk is a primary source from an organization the subject leads. (Not independent)
Jewish News focuses on organizational developments and only briefly mentions Levy. (Wrong subject)
Leo Baeck College profile is uncredited and potentially self-authored. (Unreliable, likely self-published)
JewishGen is about a synagogue building, not Levy himself. (Too sparse, Wrong subject)

These sources fail to provide the significant, in-depth, and independent coverage required for notability under either GNG or NPERSON. Without substantial third-party coverage—particularly from newspapers, religious publications, or similar sources—there is no verifiable basis for inclusion. As it stands, the article should be deleted for lack of notability.

Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 02:39, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Reason above Alexnewmon2623 (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Friedman

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

I found this article that is directly about him (but it is more of an interview). Other than that, coverage is mainly based on mentions or is directly about Scribd, a company he co-founded. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Computing, Internet, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Scribd. I agree there's no established notability outside of that, and the article itself is full of refbombing and casual namedrops. Ravenswing 17:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Named by Time Magazine Top Tech Pioneer, co-founder Scribd, and Y Combinator partner. — ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Scribd. The original article is, frankly, a mess, and apart from the two articles mentioned (interview and Times article), I'm having trouble finding mentions of his name that aren't from social media sites. Xarinu (Talk 2 Me :] ) 03:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tikhon Bernstam

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, California, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see lots of good sources. There are some issues with the article, but they are solvable. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC) Optionally, this could be merged into Scribd. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many sources to establish his notability. Founder of Scribd, Parse, and Rye. In 2012, named as one of the Top 15 CEOs to Watch by Business Insider. — ERcheck (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Bourret

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

I can find zero google news results. Zip. Google Search results give a paragraph, max, of coverage. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Badminton. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Radio Canada piece from 2020, on his role as school sports director during COVID. This is possibly the same itw. here an article on him from 2004 (non-Olympic). Mentions from the 2004 Sydney Olympics here, here, here. Some non-independent news on his role in Badminton Canada here, here. Mentioned here from a 2002 competition. Apparently the General Director of Sports Montreal, Inc. ([63]). Quoted here in news piece from 2024. --Soman (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfield Riding and Driving Club

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

I can find no discussion in depth on this subject. All I can find is photographs and passing mentions in the newspaper, such as "50 years ago today it began having horse shows," and "XXXX won YYYY trophy." I can't even find articles about its organization or dissolution. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Horse racing, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Plainfield Horse Show was apparently a prominent event of its time, run by the club, and had its own show grounds. Numerous sources exist, however they are prior to the internet. According to WP:NPOSSIBLE, it is only necessary to show that sources exist, though it is not necessary to have cited them in the article. My wiki-work in the area of carriages and driving has enabled me to find enough sources on this topic to indicate that this subject passes standards for notability.
There are 15 search results in the New York Times archives ranging from 1907 to 1935 for "Plainfield Horse Show".^[1] Almay has numerous historical photos,^[2]^[3] most of which have been copied to WikiCommons. The articles and photos indicate several high society individuals attended as spectators and competed in the shows. Since driving clubs limited their memberships to worthy well-connected individuals, and driving is/was an expensive pastime, I would expect that society pages would be covering this annual horse show.
This 1906 issue of Bit & Spur^[4] has numerous references to Plainfield (the club, the grounds, and the show) throughout the issue, and on page 129 covers the first day of the show, names the class winners, and mentions there will be more detailed coverage to follow in their next issue. There are three pages of coverage in a Bit & Spur 1913 issue.^[5] The content in these two issues indicate to me that this periodical probably extensively covered this horse show for many years.
Another periodical, The Carriage Monthly also covered the Plainfield shows.^[6] At this point, having satisfied myself that this is a notable topic, I stopped searching for more sources. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really respect your expertise in this field. I did read the mentions of the club in newspapers before I even suggested this article for deletion. They mentioned the horse shows and sometimes contestants and winners, but not the club itself.

I just read references 4 and 5 below. Nearly every reference in 4 is either a photo caption or mentions a horse entered in a show. Page 341 basically describes a new venue for the club, names the committee that brought this to pass and says they got drunk. The article in reference 5 is mostly about a show at the venue. Neither of these cover the club in depth; they talk about the shows.

WP:ORGSIG requires significant attention from independent sources, and photo captions and race date anouncements don't qualify because they tell us nothing about the club.

I believe you that members of high society were club members, but WP:INHERITORG says that organizations don't inherit notability from members.

WP:ORGCRITE says that notability requires significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, and the sources I've read talk about the grounds, which are not the club, and the horse shows, which also are not the club. The only mention of club members named the ones who somehow got the venue built and got drunk. None of this explains to the reader the club's notability, why and how it came into being, what its purpose was, etc. I couldn't even find a newspaper article about the fate of the venue or the club. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should rename the article to Plainfield Horse Show, especially since that fits closer to the types of sources that do exist, and leave the club name to a mention within the article. (I would do it, but not during an AfD.)

The grounds were owned by the club, and the show was run by the club. It is common practice in Wikipedia to lump together in one article all closely related topics if there isn't too much content, for example a company, it's founder, it's products, and it's headquarters. Sometimes it's a toss-up as to whether the article is titled for the company, the founder, or its product. It was common practice for a club, patron or organization to establish and hold long-running horse shows. Examples include Badminton Horse Trials at Badminton House, and the Topping Riding Club (still in existence) held a horse show for several years before it was renamed Hampton Classic Horse Show after its more famous location, The Hamptons.

You missed my point about the elite. I meant that the show would have gotten ample news coverage because of its patronage by famous names (sources exist), and was not trying to suggest that celebrity competitors made the show notable (inheriting notability). Just because it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to find those sources online, doesn't mean they don't exist. I have shown that sources do exist for the horse show, quite in detail, and over a long period of time (10+ years). See WP:NPOSSIBLE: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article".

Since we can easily rename the article (and expand it with my recent research), I suggest focusing less on "the club" (current title) and more on "the topic" of the club, which includes it's show, it's members, it's grounds, etc. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Search results for "Plainfield Horse Show"". New York Times.
^ "Search for 'Plainfield Riding and Driving Club'". Almay.
^ "Search for 'Plainfield Horse Show'". Almay.
^ "Plainfield : The First Day". Bit & Spur. II (11). The Bit & Spur Publishing Company: 129. January 1906.
^ "At Picturesque Plainfield". Bit & Spur. XII (1): 18–19, 56. January 1913. (page 56) ...which in point of daily and also total attendance, broke every record for the past ten years, clearly indicating that in New Jersey, as in other sections, there is a decided increase in horse interest, and all that pertains to the horse ... The management is to be warmly congratulated.
^ "Dates of Prominent Horse Shows". The Carriage Monthly. Philadelphia: Ware Bros. Company. May 1912. pp. 45, 49. Following are the date of the principal horse shows scheduled for the remainder of the year. The list includes the more prominent shows of this country and Canada: ... Plainfield, N. J., June 6th-8th. (page 49) Both championships in the harness class went to J. W. Harriman's entries. (page 45)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and expand The problem is that we have a one sentence stub. Looks like the club formed to run the horse show, so there’s little sense in splitting the two concepts. Now that it has been discovered , Someone (and it won’t be me, but I am linking some sources I found if anyone else is interested ) needs to expand it enough so that it can stand on its own. But I concur that this show/club was notable, and I would make an analogy to the articles on various horse races that were a big deal in their time but are now defunct. I’m on Newspapers.com and a constrained search for this club name gave me 577 hits. Looks like the club itself incorporated in 1905 with $25,000 of capitalization and there had been a horse show in 1904. I have linked an article on the 1905 incorporation and a oiece in NJ.com from 2012 discussing the event. Another clipping from 1963 discussing the show in 1913 noted that it drew 400 entries, which was pretty impressive. Looks like it ran through about 1917 or so— these shows stopped during WWI and many never recovered — and the grounds burned down in 1922. Looks like the organization had a polo team for a while afterwards. But bottom line is that I recommend we close this for now, give interested editors a chance to build it up from a stub, and then see what we have quality wise. As a horse show, it easily hits notability. Montanabw^(talk) 06:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename. The sources found by Grorp are adequate to show notability of the horse show at the very least. Per WP:PRESERVE I think this should be updated rather than deleted.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Companion to Australian Jazz

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

Only contains a single source. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep It is a member of an important series of books, and the fact that its only critique is dismissive is significant. Doug butler (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there were another book review like that one, which is on-point and detailed, then I'd be for keeping. Multiple means more than 1, however; and although I have looked in the places where I would expect to find book reviews, I have not found a second one. I have no access to Choice reviews (the U.S.A. academic one, not the Australian consumer one), note. Uncle G (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is that the book is used as a reputable source by the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which is a sort of review.Doug butler (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not. Uncle G (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Additional review in The Musical Times (here), and a short review in JazzTimes (here) (Feb1989, p25). Also noticed the Choice, which I have requested from my library. This is sufficient to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shipton review is on-point and detailed, too. (Far too often, reviewers waffle on about their pet subjects and barely give the book a mention.) So that's 2. I don't know why it didn't come up for me when I searched JSTOR. At this point, it is just about over the bar; although the more the merrier, of course. Uncle G (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Choice review is 130 words, and starts off: A meticulously detailed and thoroughly researched book on a subject virtually unknown to American jazz aficionados and scholars. Johnson offers a historical overview of Australian jazz from 1917 to the present, and encyclopedia entries on major and minor Australian jazz musicians and related subjects. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Music, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Age have an extensive review of the book by Adrian Jackson , 9 April 1988, "Swinging to the Oz beat". duffbeerforme (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Heralds Sykes on Sunday column 13 December 1987 by Jill Sykes titled "Music for the festive season dedicates over a quarter of its space to the book. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khady Ndiaye

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

This seems like a WP:BLP1E. Also, Ndiaye isn't even a chaplain yet, but a chaplain candidate, so even notability for that event seems not particularly special. I don't think she meets WP:ANYBIO either. For most other chaplains to get firsts like Bonnie Koppell and Abdul-Rasheed Muhammad, they have more significant accomplishments beyond being the first chaplain of their religion/gender, and I don't think Ndiaye's removal from the DoD website, while unfortunate, is something that qualifies as making her more notable. Ndiaye also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG as the Army source is not independent, and there really isn't any WP:SIGCOV outside of the NYTimes article, so not multiple sources.

I'd say draftifying at very least would be appropriate until Ndiaye actually becomes a chaplain. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Military. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We will likely not know if she becomes a chaplain as it probably will not be reported on in this administration so we would not have RS coverage on it. The usual timeline for that happening would be next month.

While the nominator suggests her accomplishment is not "particularly special", when you recognize the historical weight of her accomplishment in the 200+ year history of the US Army, notability is considerable. The fact that she received a press release on her nomination at the time, which garnered attention from the paper of record, is significant coverage.

The removal of her information from the DoD website is more than "unfortunate", it's part of an orchestrated attempt to rewrite history, which makes the subject even more notable.

Nayyn (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any reporting from the administration doesn't matter either way as that's not independent. Press releases from the Army don't count as independent coverage. The NYT article does, but it is only one part of meeting WP:GNG which requires multiple sources. And then there's still the WP:BLP1E concerns. 2LT Ndiaye is probably likely to remain WP:LPI and we can't WP:CRYSTALBALL that she won't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro could you please add this to the deletion sorting lists for women, religion and Islam please, I'm not sure how to do that. Many thanks Nayyn (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, and Islam. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I use this script, it's quite handy: User:Enterprisey/delsort ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 11:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al Habtoor

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

Not a notable business person. No significant coverage Wp:SIGCOV is available about the subject. His father may be notable, but he is not, and notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, and United Arab Emirates. Zuck28 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Model of British Ancestry

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

There is no such thing as the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry", and the old sources being united under this heading are about different things, and are handled in various other WP articles. This new article fails in terms of WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:V. There has been discussion already on the talk page, and no convincing source has been forthcoming.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about a school of thought that was once dominant in British genetics as late as 15 years ago, which will mean that the subject is notable. which if included in other articles would give undue weight to the now largely abandoned idea that the British gene pool is substantially unaffected by subsequent invaders, because Wikipedia was being substantially written then. There was at two major TV series devoted to this, Francis Pryor's Britain AD and Britain BC, while you had some best sellers (as well as the accompanying books from Francis Pryor, they also included Blood of the Isles and The Origins of the British) which propounded a theory that was dominant in academia before more genetic testing of ancient DNA became practical. Some quotes that illustrate the thinking from that time:

"The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old 'invasion model', and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely discredited." Dr Simon James - BBC article
"All these marker systems indicate a deep-shared ancestry in the Atlantic zone, dating at least in part to the end of the Ice Age" - Genetics and the Origins of the British Population - in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (accesible with Wikimedia)
"But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans." Nicholas Wade
"The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands." - Prospect article by Stephen Oppenheimer, a major populariser of the argument
"This idea of a ‘Beaker Folk’ became unpopular after the 1960s as scepticism grew about the role of migration in mediating change in archaeological cultures" - The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe *"During the 1960s scepticism began to grow about the primacy of migration as a vector of social change in prehistory." The return of the Beaker Folk? Rethinking migration and population change in British prehistory academic paper that severely challenged the school
"By that time, many scholars favoured a model of elite dominance involving small, mobile warbands and the acculturation of the local British population" The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool - Later article that severely challenged this school

I intend to add others as this debate goes on. JASpencer (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JASpencer: As discussed on the article talk page, what you are listing are at best different arguments (I think doubts would be a better term) against different possible migrations, in different periods of history and prehistory. They are simply not united by any "model" or "school" or "theory" or "movement". (To pre-empt another possible argument, they are also not united by being the results of genetic research. Doubts about the extreme "migrationism" of the late 19th and early 20th century, were, as you show yourself, common long before genetic evidence became available. Indeed your genetic-oriented sources are from the period before meaningful genetic evidence was available.) There are also other articles for every valid point that can be discussed about the sources you are uniting. Also, as discussed concerning recent articles you tried to create, putting everything else aside it wouldn't make any sense to make separate articles for models (for example the Germanicist extreme "migrationism") and diverse critics of those models [64][65].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit down, or merge. I cut out an entirely unsourced piece. If nobody objects, I'll do more editing down to a more manageable size, in the next 48 hours. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source for the existence of the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry"? We should not have an article about something which does not exist, surely? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as an objection. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an honest question, and has nothing to do with your editing proposal. If there is a source, then maybe I should change my own opinion, which is that the article should be deleted (although there would still be major overlap concerns). Concerning editing the article, the whole idea seems a bit surreal unless we can define some notable topic which this article is about? Right now it is essentially a collection of snippets about different topics which are covered in other articles. Not only is there already an article about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, but even an extra article about the history of debates about it, made recently by the same editor who recently made this one Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. In the same series of events we also had two more articles created for BOTH sides of the specific continuity migration this article about [66][67]. These now redirect to Migrationism and diffusionism. We also have [[68]]. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes editing would help, thank you for your interest. JASpencer (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source for the term 'continuity model' as it relates to Britain, fwiw. Tewdar 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've added this as a reference. For those who don't have access to Wikipedia library the quote is "This approach could be described as the ‘continuity model’ and it remains extremely important in post-processual considerations of the transition period. Lots of other references there to chase down. JASpencer (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We really need more educated opinions on this article so I'll try another relisting to see if we can arrive at some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Clay (soccer)

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sit-ups (punishment)

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

Reason Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC) This entire article contains numerous unreferenced claims about the various variants of sit-ups, lacking any reliable sources to support them. The information appears to have been added by some bunch of students, incorporating misleading and nonsensical details that violate Wikipedia’s content policies. Furthermore, most of the information on this topic is derived from news sources and it is not required to make a seperate article for this topic in wikipedia if further research isn't made.[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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what's worse, the sourcing only beginning at the bottom of the article or the fact that no-one in 11 years has consulted any sort of decent source to discover that uthak baithak is in fact squatting, as is murga (which we currently have at stress position). Uncle G (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the referenced content into the "Sit-up" article and delete the article and the large amount of unreferenced content. A independent article about sit-ups as a punishment does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedialuva (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge it into the wrong thing? It isn't a sit-up. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Uncle G: I guess the "Squat (exercise)" article would probably be a better place to move the referenced content to than "sit-ups". Although minimal, some of the referenced material appears likely salvageable and worth moving. However, given the reasons outlined by myself and others, I concur with the deletion of the article. Wikipedialuva (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia:NOTDB - doesn't meet WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. — ERcheck (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with ERcheck and quite concur w/ Uncle G, this article rambles on for far too long before citing anything (and even then, it only does so twice in-text). It seems like WP:NOTESSAY ought to apply here. Xarinu (Talk 2 Me :] ) 04:17, 30 March 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, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete, but granting these aren’t sit-ups, is there a legit name for the exercise of sitting and standing repeatedly? Hyperbolick (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and it is two degrees of Wikipedia, via the disambiguation headnote, from the article that I hyperlinked earlier in this discussion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge into Sit-up as that is not an appropriate location for anything here (not sit-ups) and nothing here is encyclopaedic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Yvanovich

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

Please see this diff from before I removed a section. I wasn't going to AfD this at first, but after digging into it more, I don't see any redeemable sources, nor could I find any on my own. This article was created by a paid editor and moved from the draftspace themselves, however, it occurred 110 days ago so draftification was not an option. The only source that could be approaching significant coverage is the Yahoo News article, everything else is primary sources, WP:PASSINGMENTIONS, etc. Without the puffery, this article says little more than "This is someone who exists." MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MediaKyle (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Vietnam, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative gendarmerie enlisted ranks of Francophone countries

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

Unclear why this comparison would be a notable topic (plus WP:NOTGALLERY). Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and France. Fram (talk) 18:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Incomprehensible and basically unreferenced (I mean comparison is unreferenced). --Altenmann >talk 20:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is in line with other comparative charts for military ranks that have been kept for years. As shown in the introduction and history sections, gendarmeries across the francophone world commonly developed from the French gendarmerie that was made up of deployed personnel from France alongside locally recruited personnel. So, this article provides an easy view of the similarities between these forces, alongside the more interesting differences as seen in the cases of Mauritius and Vanuatu, where while acting as and being recognised as gendarmeries in the literature, follow British policing inspired rank systems, due to British colonial interests and history in these territories. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have shared shared a link to this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History, as that is the Project with main interest in this article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are similar articles relating to comparative ranks and provides useful information. Just needs some improvement.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article provides important details about gendarmeries and their ranks. I suggest the article be improved as its a helpful resource.Frank Ken (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having received notification from the relevant WikiProject, I took a look at the article and sources, but couldn't find what the problem is other than minor editorial issues, so I decided to come here for more info. I totally agree with Cdjp1 and others. This is in line with other comparative charts especially in the military. It is notable with plenty of reliable sources, not to mention helpful to the general reader, and I see no problem here. Tamsier (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that the people of the MilHist project seem to like this article, but why? The text has no comparison of the ranks at all, just provides some background. The large gallery provides no context and has no clear relation to the article text. The implicit claims in the gallery (e.g. that a sergeant-major in Canada isn't comparable to a sergeant-major in Chad, or that a corporal in Tunisia isn't comparable to a corporal in Vanuatu) are unreferenced, and it is very unclear which of the 23 sources, if any, are actually about the comparison in the table, or whether this table is pure WP:OR, and whether any reliable sources actually do care about the comparison of Tunisian ranks with Vanuatuan ranks. Fram (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think editorial issues do not qualify for article deletion, considering this is notable.

Maybe we could move it for Gendarmerie ranks in general, and also include russian natonal guard, PAP and other agencies Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with Thehistorianisaac. As I've stated above, there are indeed editorial issues, which could be fixed, but that's not a ground for deletion. The issues could be fixed through our normal editing process, but the article is notable and warrants a stand-alone. Tamsier (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You both claim this is notable, but neither of you has responded to my question; which of the 23 sources, if any, are actually about the comparison in the table, or whether this table is pure WP:OR, and whether any reliable sources actually do care about the comparison of e.g. Tunisian ranks with Vanuatuan ranks.
  
  The topîc of the article is the comparison, so you need sources about the comparison, not sources about individual countries nor about the history of the French gendarmerie. This is not an editorial issue, this is a fundamental issue for an AfD. Fram (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find articles like this useful but can't comment on their notability. Fwiw, I was led here from a Village Pump thread on the same topic that seems relevant. -- Avocado (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doorman (character)

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

A minor superhero in Marvel comics and a member of the Great Lakes Avengers. Doorman has very little in the way of coverage; a search only turns up WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, which do not indicate notability, or brief mentions as part of the Great Lakes Avengers when that group receives separate discussion. He is not individually notable from the Great Lakes Avengers, and I feel as though a redirect there should more than suffice given what little coverage of him exists. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:26, 30 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) 00:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources that have been added to the article. BOZ (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bulk of these sources are either plot summary or hail from trivial mentions or Wikipedia:VALNET. There's little in the way of SIGCOV or an actual indication of the importance of the character here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 20:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woochong Um

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

Sourcing currently doesn't suggest notability for people; WP:NBIO. Possible notable, but not clear from current state seefooddiet (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, Korea, and Philippines. seefooddiet (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". The Moran Peony Medal is the 2nd grade Order of Civil Merit (South Korea) from the President of South Korea. — Maile (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The National Merit Peony Medal, awarded by the President of South Korea, is a state-level honor broadly comparable to the UK's OBE. This satisfies notability under WP:ANYBIO. HerBauhaus (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Woochong Um meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines based on:

Leadership at a Major Institution – As Managing Director General of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), he held the second-highest position and the highest-ranking non-governmental role at the bank. He received significant coverage in this role. (source). Guideline: WP:BASIC

Significant Award – He received the Moran Peony Medal, the second-highest grade of the Order of Civil Merit in South Korea, awarded by the President of South Korea for contributions to national development (source). Guideline: WP:ANYBIO

These factors meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for inclusion. Margaretrev (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Medical research and academic papers led and contributed by Dr. Keneth Hall"

[2] Pates, Stephen; Daley, Allison C.; Ortega-Hernández, Javier (March 2018). "Reply to Comment on "Aysheaia prolata from the Utah Wheeler Formation (Drumian, Cambrian) is a frontal appendage of the radiodontan Stanleycaris" with the formal description of Stanleycaris". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 63 (1): 105–110. doi:10.31233/osf.io/ek4z6.

[3] "Search results for "Plainfield Horse Show"". New York Times.

[4] "Search for 'Plainfield Riding and Driving Club'". Almay.

[5] "Search for 'Plainfield Horse Show'". Almay.

[6] "Plainfield : The First Day". Bit & Spur. II (11). The Bit & Spur Publishing Company: 129. January 1906.

[7] "At Picturesque Plainfield". Bit & Spur. XII (1): 18–19, 56. January 1913. (page 56) ...which in point of daily and also total attendance, broke every record for the past ten years, clearly indicating that in New Jersey, as in other sections, there is a decided increase in horse interest, and all that pertains to the horse ... The management is to be warmly congratulated.

[8] "Dates of Prominent Horse Shows". The Carriage Monthly. Philadelphia: Ware Bros. Company. May 1912. pp. 45, 49. Following are the date of the principal horse shows scheduled for the remainder of the year. The list includes the more prominent shows of this country and Canada: ... Plainfield, N. J., June 6th-8th. (page 49) Both championships in the harness class went to J. W. Harriman's entries. (page 45)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]