Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 19	April 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Carlos Cárdenas (Mexican footballer)

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

The subject played three matches in the Liga MX and a few dozen in Mexico's second tier. I've been unable to find anything beyond database entries, passing mentions in match reports and transfer announcements. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In concurrence with Robby.is.on and Svartner, it fails WP:GNG. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans

AfDs for this article:

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

Unable to locate any significant sufficient coverage that demonstrates notability beyond national law review. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Information and sourcing is over a decade out of date. See https://nchv.org/ — Maile (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

José Miguel Medina

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

The subject played in the Mexican second tier. I've been unable to find anything beyond database entries, passing mentions in match reports and transfer announcements. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In concurrence with Robby.is.on and Svartner, it fails WP:GNG. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forrester Research

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

Unable to find significant coverage from independent reliable sources anywhere. The sourcing provided in the article also is only "contact us". Completely unreferenced from a secondary source standpoint. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found except the company's own publications and routine directory/PR sites like ZDNet and Crunchbase. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opaka, Ukraine

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

Stub which was previously created as a blank page 5 months ago and draftified, then "touched" recently and moved into mainspace without sources. IMO there is no reason to believe the article creator will improve the article. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 23:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any sources mentioning this village. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the creator. Opaka does indeed exist. Could not find english-language sources, only from other languages.

Also, does Google Maps count?

This is the location: 49.286990392969294, 23.29115730090297 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Opaka,+Oblast+Lwiw,+Ukraine,+82191/@49.2848661,23.2937078,2378m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x473bcab21db83a75:0x95810eacc5517781!2sOpaka,+Oblast+Lwiw,+Ukraine,+82191!3b1!8m2!3d49.2868277!4d23.29108!16s%2Fg%2F120m1dxh!3m5!1s0x473bcab21db83a75:0x95810eacc5517781!8m2!3d49.2868277!4d23.29108!16s%2Fg%2F120m1dxh?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)

Or do you prefer me adding sources from other languages? Ultracrax (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please source it. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did now! I added a few sources. I am just having a little issue with putting the postal code reference to the reference header instead of the info box where it is now. Ultracrax (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I now added a few sources. I am just having a little issue with putting the postal code reference to the reference header instead of the info box where it is now. Ultracrax (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND as a populated place. Note there are some sources in the corresponding article on Ukrainian Wikipedia. ----Pontificalibus 18:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for wanting to keep! I already added a few sources. I am just having a little issue with putting the postal code reference to the reference header instead of the info box where it is now. Ultracrax (talk) 10:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"IMO there is no reason to believe the article creator will improve the article."

Wrong! I added a few sources. I am just having a little issue with putting the postal code reference to the reference header instead of the info box where it is now. Ultracrax (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GEOLAND. A note, Ultracrax, non-English sources are fine, English sources are just preferred when we have equal quality english ones. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addiel Reyes

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

The subject played in the Mexican second tier. I've been unable to find anything beyond database entries and passing mentions in match reports. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, and Mexico. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In concurrence with Robby.is.on, it fails WP:GNG. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat

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

I'm hesitant to mark this article for deletion, but the sources here feel insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as well as WP:NSCHOLAR (for the work in question). In addition, a rudimentary check suggests an extremely high likelyhood the article was written by AI, and lastly, the dates of the citations violate WP:MOS, raising questions as to whether they were hallucinated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Iran, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a scholar in the usual sense; more of an independent, which we can't quantify or assess without significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources (except for Hedaytoor website) are all independent of the author. That said, for most of Exegeses not written in English, the issues mentioned above exist. Take for example the following:

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

Moreover, the references went through a round of modification ever since this nomination started to make sure they are accessible online.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ippei Saga

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

No significant coverage per WP:ATHLETE. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything at all through simple searches. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abortive Gasp

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

Was deprodded. The rationale is explained on the talk page of the article. However, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seeing some coverage but not enough to justify or meet GNG. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd hate to agree, but there's not much margin for this band to work with in the notability requirements for bands - not on significant label, no notable members, no evidence of tours or other notable characteristics; most I could find was one review from 1991 -- t_kiehne (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A recent mark of its notability is the English-language documentary from 2022 'Nothing New But Abortive Gasp', available at [1], confirmed on [2] and reviewed on [3]] from Maryland, USA, for ex. Bunkerband (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I'm being canvassed by @Bunkerband on my talk page about this. It appears they've canvassed 14 people based on their current contributions, which I'm going to revert for the time being. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were 17 canvassing messages sent, which I've now reverted. Several of those who were left a message haven't edited in a year plus. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Bunkerband, I'm with you in spirit - I try hard to keep as many of Wikiproject Industrial articles going as I can, but without any of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC being met, even obliquely, it is next to impossible. Thanks for your concern but please don't take it personally -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, t_kiehne, for your kind words—I really feel they’re genuine. I got a bit too eager trying to drum up some lively participation in this deletion discussion and unknowingly went a bit overboard—sorry about that. Seems like it didn’t do much good anyway, unfortunately. Here’s hoping you can save as many industrial articles as possible—I’m rooting for the cause! Bunkerband (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of St. Pölten

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

This "battle" appears to be mentioned in only one source, a 1902 text which describes a minor skirmish. The article's other sources cited make no mention of it, as far as I can tell. The article appears to misrepresent this skirmish as a major engagement and applies a name to it, the "Battle of St. Pölten," which the single original source does not. This incident seems to be neither notable nor supported by reliable sources. Carpolomew (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elevated Entertainment

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

Most of the references are instagram links and the others are mostly primary sources. It doesn't look like there's any SIGCOV but someone more familiar with Kuwaiti sources might have better luck. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT available in my search. If someone can present non-English references, I would be happy to take a look. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goldisc Records

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

Cannot find sources Roasted (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Roasted (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its founder, George Goldner. An obvious AtD; why was this even brought to AfD? Clearly we don't want a redlink here. Chubbles (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its president George Goldner; honestly why didn't this happen years earlier? I forgot I even made that. BrothaTimothy (talk · contribs) 20:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to its founder George Goldner. Considering that this company no longer exists, the merge seems like the best alternative here. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Goldner per everyone else, hope we can get it to SNOW here. Nathannah • 📮 22:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qarqozak Bridge and Tishreen Dam

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

Per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, an article shouldn't cover the same topic. This article covers the same topic as the East Aleppo offensive (2024–2025) article, just with less quality.

For example, it has 15 citation needed and 4 non-primary source needed tags since 25 February, 7 out of 10 sources come from Telegram, which could violate WP:UGC or WP:SELFSOURCE, and all sources date back to December 2024, making it outdated in regards to info about the battle. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement about the proposed deletion. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Syria. Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Noever

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

Upon search, I can't find any reliable, independent sources about the subject. Not to mention, none of the current sources in the article are reliable, which means that we can't presume that the subject is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Businesspeople, and Austria. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Museums and libraries. Netherzone (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Peter Noever is an internationally known curator, author, museum professional and designer. What is problematic about the article is the COI editing and large amounts of unsourced content, all of which can be cleaned up. AfD is not clean up. A quick WP:BEFORE search on the WP Library (access required) finds these reviews of his books: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and many others. Reviews of his work as curator: [9], [10], [11], additionally there are these interviews (primary sources, but relevant): [12], [13]. Clearly a notable person who meets WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Question for nominator @WormEater13: since when has Domus (magazine) a notable art, architecture and design magazine that has been around since 1928 become an "unreliable" source? Netherzone (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clean-up is in order but subject is definitely notable per Netherzone. I also added WP:SIGCOV from LA Times to the article. Zzz plant (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netherzone and Zzz plant. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khumoyun Begmuratov

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable. The competition that the subject has also won does not seem to be notable either. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Uzbekistan. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bit too soon. Bearian (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Only able to find passing mentions. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communist (Maoist) Party of Afghanistan

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

Cannot find any independent reliable coverage of this organization. Article only cites primary sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Afghanistan. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering that this was always an underground organization, sourcing is always going to be difficult. It is very difficult to assess the size of this group in its present iteration. But it is possible to assert notability in its earlier stages, when the Afghan Maoist movement was still a political and military factor, at least the Paikar group (forerunner per https://web.archive.org/web/20130524194344/http://www.kas.de/db_files/dokumente/7_dokument_dok_pdf_9674_2.pdf ) was clearly a notable actor. And CPA is mentioned here as one of the major revolutionary organizations in Afghanistan. --Soman (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the arguments from @Soman Castroonthemoon (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per @Soman. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Buamah

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

Subject does not appear to be notable per either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Ghana, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Communist League (Maoist)

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

Fails GNG; cannot find any SIGCOV in reliable sources; cited sources are all blogs and party communications. "History" section appears to be SYNTH, as its one source makes no mention of this group that I can find, and further statements are uncited. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Europe, and South America. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable organisation. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable as per argument above Castroonthemoon (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lassy Mbouity

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

Non notable. Already deleted with another title Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lassy_Bouity

On WP.fr, article has been deleted three times (with detailed deletion discussions), due to recreation with sligthly different titles : fr:Discussion:Lassy Bouity/Suppression, fr:Discussion:Lassy Mbouity/Suppression and fr:Discussion:Grace_Herval_Lassy_Mbouity/Suppression.

Habertix (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC) and 18:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, History, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horribly promotional and refbombed biography, with half of the references being broken links to bookstores that don't seem to actually sell his books, or sources that don't mention him. I found a couple of interviews (e.g. [14]) but had no luck finding usable reviews of any of his books in either English or French. MCE89 (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:PROMO FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Michaels (songwriter)

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

Promotional tone, failed verifications, more citations needed... in the end, may not meet the notability standards. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Bands and musicians. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Hakim

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a restaurateur and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for restaurateurs or filmmakers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their activities in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources such as IMDb and the self-published websites of companies he's been directly affiliated with, which are not support for notability, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy coverage about him shown at all (let alone the several hits of GNG-worthy coverage it would take to pass GNG.)
There's also a possible conflict of interest here, as the attempted notability claim hinges in part on a coffee shop while the creator's username was "JoeCoffee37". Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Food and drink, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Kenneth

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

Does not meet GNG, most of the sources provided are not reliable independent, and article sounds promotional Uncle Bash007 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10 as duplicate of Mercy Kenneth Okonkwo, which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy Kenneth Okonkwo. PamD 08:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete in agreement with the voter above. The other article on the same person is eleigible for an extended deletion discussion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Red Cross Kyushu International College of Nursing

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

Unsourced article, no evidence of notability. A Google search about this university shows no in-depth sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Japan. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a general rule, a college or a university is considered notable. So you need to explain why this particular case is an exception. (And I don't see any exception.) -- Taku (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you ok? This article is unsourced, there is no evidence that this university notable. I think you better explain why article with 0 sources is notable. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say the article is a hoax? If not, a university is generally considered notable regardless of how the article is written. Remember the notability is independent of the content. The article obviously needs more references but that's a content issue not the notability one. -- Taku (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are no detailed sources about this university on the internet, so i doubt it can be improved. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the internet, maybe but surely there are some offline sources like newspapers. Not everything is accessible through Google. Also, even if there aren't many English sources there can be some non-English sources (especially offline ones). Usually finding those requires a trip to a local library in Japan. -- Taku (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Abdel Hamid Soliman

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

Non-notable sportsman. No sources beyond profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Egypt. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign exchange bureaus in Uganda

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

This page fails WP:NLIST WP:DIRECTORY WP:INDISCRIMINATE and potentially WP:MIRROR - there is no clear reason why this merits its own article. All information is taken from one reference, which is just an archived link to a document which contains nearly all the same info. To top it all of, there is a link to someone's scam crypto investment on Telegram at the top of the article SJD Willoughby (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Textbook example of a WP:DIRECTORY failure. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Lists, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete astonishing that this has survived since 2010. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:DIRECTORY. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a webhost for commercial directories. Bearian (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:DIRECTORY. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To add what has already been stated about NOTDIRECTORY, there is no significant coverage that discusses this list as a whole so would fail WP:NLIST as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roozbeh Pournader

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

The subject has been subject of multiple notability tags. They have been cited as a winner of the IOI gold medal, technical director at Unicode, and other contributions to the field of I10n, but there is no significant coverage to pass GNG. [15], [16], [17], [18] Xpander (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, Technology, Computing, and Iran. Xpander (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantom (rapper)

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

I have blocked the author as a probable UPE, but this page falls just short of G11, in my view. Nonetheless, I'm unable to find evidence that its subject meets GNG or any other applicable threshold. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jatiyo Jubo Mohila Party

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

The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The organization was established few years ago and has not yet received any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The current article relies solely on a press release about its inception.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Savitech

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

no wp:sigcov, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Kenneth Okonkwo

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

No reliable sources, fails wp:gng ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nigeria. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 16:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a duplicate article was created a couple of hours after this one, by the same editor, at Mercy Kenneth. PamD 08:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When combining the duplicate articles, she appears to be working under three different names: Adaeze, Mercy Kenneth, and Mercy Kenneth Okonkwo. Under all three of those names I can only find very basic credits with no independent merdia coverage of her career, but she is good at promoting herself in social media and user-generated promotional platforms. Good luck to her as she gets started; at age 16 she has plenty of time to generate the reliable media coverage that is necessary for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Social Democratic Party

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

The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The organization was established only two months ago and has not yet received any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Additionally, it is not registered as a political party. The current article relies solely on a press release about its inception.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is well notable, couldn't you just check for sources before nominating it for AfD? In fact, there are even more sources, It's difficult to add, and just because It's not registered doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message BangladeshiEditorInSylhet), 04:26 PM, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: The fact that you created the article does not mean you should always vote to keep it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. Wikipedia is not a directory; it does not include every piece of information. It only includes notable topics, as explained in WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:RS. Please take the time to read these policy pages before creating a large number of articles on non-notable subjects. I've noticed that many of your articles rely primarily on press releases and routine coverage, which are not sufficient for establishing notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Owais Al Qarni:, Alright then, I did not say it contains every bit of information. If my pages rely on such passing mentions only, then why don't you search for sources and try to add it or even just check, Adding sources is not just the creator's job, Sure I'll check those policies AGAIN, sure. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 16:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one created the article does not mean someone should always vote to delete it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Popular Party

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

The article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The organization was established only six months ago and has not yet received any substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Additionally, it is not registered as a political party. The current article relies solely on a press release about its inception.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is well notable, couldn't you just check for sources before nominating it for AfD? In fact, there are even more sources, It's difficult to add, and just because It's not registered doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a article. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (Message BangladeshiEditorInSylhet), 04:26 PM, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, @BangladeshiEditorInSylhet: The fact that you created the article does not mean you should always vote to keep it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. Wikipedia is not a directory; it does not include every piece of information. It only includes notable topics, as explained in WP:GNG, WP:NORG, and WP:RS. Please take the time to read these policy pages before creating a large number of articles on non-notable subjects. I've noticed that many of your articles rely primarily on press releases and routine coverage, which are not sufficient for establishing notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Owais Al Qarni:, Alright then, I did not say it contains every bit of information. If my pages rely on such passing mentions only, then why don't you search for sources and try to add it or even just check, Adding sources is not just the creator's job, Sure I'll check those policies AGAIN, sure. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 17:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that one created the article does not mean someone should always vote to delete it. AfD is not a place for voting, but rather for logical and policy-based discussion. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk), 17:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajdin Mujagić

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

This Bosnian men's footballer had a short professional career before moving to the second tier of Croatian football. The closest source that is not a transfer announcement is SportSport, but it only mentions his name in title. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per all above. Anwegmann (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reference count has more than doubled since the last "delete" !vote. Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article has enough content and sources to be notable. Per WP:SPORTSPERSON the article has secondary sources that are independent to the subject to be presumed notable. They have also won the Bosonian Cup as well. Extensive research could have been done. Editz2341231 (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bijai Jayarajan

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable upon search. Not to mention, the current sources are not WP:SIGCOV or seem to be press releases. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, and India. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Most sources focus on the company Loylty Rewardz, not the individual. If anything, the business might merit an article, not the founder. The rest of the sources are just interviews, which aren't independent coverage. Doesn't meet the notability threshold for a standalone biography. Junbeesh (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable entrepreneur. Just passing mentions are available but no Wp:SIGCOV. Zuck28 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Afshani

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined the speedy tag this am, since the (dated) sources all date newer than the previous AfD (inappropriately closed as speedy delete by a non-admin closer). This latest incarnation is entirely sourced from Farsi outlets, so even with translation, I'm not comfortable with my own views on how direct the detailing is or how much is merely routine entertainment chatter. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Dreamer

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

Redirect contested. There are not any sources on this person in this article that count for notability. The main source this article is based on, the WP:DAILYDOT, is at best marginally reliable and cannot count for notability. The other sources were repeating the Daily Dot and came out only days later, recounting their investigation with little or no added commentary that would help notability (the Italian source, the Tyee). All the other sources are non-sigcov mentions (The Verge, Mother Jones), or are completely unrelated and did not mention him whatsoever, including many sources from long before he existed as an internet personality, giving the article a serious WP:SYNTH problem (the Hill, the 2007 and 2020 sources, the 1974 source)

Secondly, even if he was notable, we should not have hijacked the redirect, because the primary topic for Captive Dreamer is still the book he named himself after.

To go down the list:

La Repubblica, recapping daily dot article, no new content X
1974 book review from before he existed, doesn't mention him X
The Tyee, recapping daily dot article, X
2020 article about the far-right, from before he existed as an internet personality, does not mention him X
The Verge, passing mention X
Daily Dot, sigcov but MREL and not usable to base a whole article on, not due weight or good for notability, X
Mother Jones, passing mention X
another 2020 journal article from before he existed, does not mention him X
The Hill, does not mention him X

There is not a single source that counts for notability on this article. Just re-redirect to that (i created the original redirect to the book, fwiw) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I firmly disagree; I believe that I did the necessary work to verify the subject's notability, and that there is enough to establish his notability:
- I'm aware that there's currently no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Dot, which is why I've relied on it as little as possible, nearly exclusively to quote tweets from the subject and to summarize their investigation. Like in the case of Stonetoss, I avoided mentioning the identity and used language that still distinguishes between "Captive Dreamer" and the individual identified. I'd also want to add that Daily Dot is not automatically unreliable, and that sources we would consider reliable (like The Verge, or La Repubblica, which has no consensus here but is an established Italian newspaper) have cited the piece.
- Intellectual independence: as PARAKANYAA says, some sources are not intellectually independent from each other; for example the La Repubblica one largely just reports the Daily Dot investigation and summarizes it. It isn't a copy-paste either, and I've cited it to avoid citing a "no consensus" source as much as possible, per my first point. Where I disagree with PARAKANYAA is that all sources are dependent on The Daily Dot, which just isn't true. The one by Mother Jones was published before, the Verge one was published after but has a different angle and some different info, and the one by the The Tyee cites the Daily Dot repeatedly, but it says to have replicated some of the investigation itself, and adds a lot of new info, including everything surrounding the BC university and its president. It also has a Canadian angle throughout.
- Significant coverage: per the guidelines, it's defined as more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Captive Dreamer is indeed not the main subject of either the Mother Jones nor the Verge one, but there are three whole paragraphs (in their subsection) dedicated to him in the former, and two in the latter, which to me is more than a trivial mention.
- Synth: some sources are indeed not related to Captive Dreamer, but I've used them purely for context bits where I wanted to use the highest quality source possible. For example, even though most sources on Captive Dreamer mention who David Koresh and Christian de la Mazière are, it made more sense to me to cite actual academic sources for these elements. There's never any amalgamation of information that isn't already put together in sources about Captive Dreamer, and I don't claim that these sources contribute to the subject's notability either.
That's all, hope that helps to establish notability. Cheers, WikiFouf (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That the Repubblica source simply recounts the Daily Dot source means it inherits its reliability. If there is no new information. I do not deny it is an established paper, but recounting exactly information for a lesser source does not make it more reliable. The new stuff in the Tyee is about his dad (who has his own claim to notability) not him. Everything in that source about CD is from the Daily Dot.

mother Jones and the Verge are reliable - but not SIGCOV. It is not any SIGCOV about him, it is passing sentences and one mention about a tweet he made in reply to Musk, which says virtually nothing about him as a person.
That is still synth structurally. I was mostly clarifying so people didn’t see a bunch of sources and think = notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the new stuff in The Tyee is directly about him; the fact that he may work for the uni, the uni statement, mentions of Canada, etc. Also, the stuff about his dad is about CG, too, he's the source and main subject of all of this. As per sigcov, I guess we have different definitions of what "trivial mention" is, but to me those are not passing sentences at all; there's a subsection just for CD in the Mother Jones source. WikiFouf (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Mother Jones is sigcov (it’s better than the Verge but I still wouldn’t count it as sigcov), that would be one source this is nowhere near fulfilling GNG or NBIO, especially for an online BLP whose identity is not confirmed. That half the sources in this article do not mention him whatsoever is a sign we don’t have enough sources for an article. As for the Tyee, it’s WP:NOTINHERITED, it’s all “person allegedly identified as fringe far right internet man may or may not have an influential father”. When we have almost no verified information to reliable sources besides who follows him on twitter we should not have an article. Virtually all biographical information here stems from the Daily Dot (marginally reliable especially for notability especially for a BLP). PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the most generous interpretation of the sources possible, considering Daily Dot as RS for this case, counting Mother Jones as sigcov, and counting the Tyee source as intellectually distinct from the daily dot, we would have 3 sources that at least partially help notability, but given their contents and that this is a BLP whose notability is so online and related to neo-Nazi ideology, is not enough. GNG requires multiple but how many that is is situational.PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're downplaying the coverage in Mother Jones and The Verge, multiple entire paragraphs is not a "passing sentence". Both are sigcov according to WP's definition (see above). Now, per WP:Notability (people): People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
The Tyee: sigcov ✓, reliable ✓, intellectually independent ✓, independent of the subject ✓

Mother Jones: sigcov ✓, reliable ✓, intellectually independent ✓, independent of the subject ✓

That's "multiple published sources", but also:
The Verge: sigcov ✓, reliable ✓, intellectually independent ✓, independent of the subject ✓

(La Repubblica, which is intellectually independent of all sources that count towards notability, assuming that we exclude Daily Dot)

The "half the sources in this article do not mention him whatsoever" has nothing to do with notability, and these are half of the sources, not of the citations. In any case, if that really was the issue, I could easily remove them.

Also no one has claimed that CD is notable because of his father, so I don't see why WP:NOTINHERITED would be brought up. WikiFouf (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
La Repubblica is entirely sourcing its content from the Daily Dot. If we cannot use the Daily Dot, we cannot use La Repubblica. The Verge is nowhere close to being SIGCOV. The Tyee sources almost all of its content from the Daily Dot. A source repeating information from a source that is unreliable does not make it more reliable. And again, this is nowhere near the amount of sourcing we would need to write this article without 1) WP:Original research and 2) WP:BLP violations PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The totality of what the Verge says about him is this:
Vance followed Captive Dreamer, one of the pseudonymous posters responsible for popularizing the smear. [...] The account, whose avatar is a photo of Branch Davidian leader David Koresh wearing a MAGA hat, frequently posts about its affinity for Adolf Hitler. This week, Captive Dreamer — whose likely identity was recently revealed by the Daily Dot — thanked Trump for mentioning Springfield in his recent State of the Union address. [...] Captive Dreamer often posts about the dangers of mass immigration and the false promise of diversity [...]

PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion of the Daily Dot, outside of its RSN consensus of MREL, is that it is probably fine in most cases for factual matters but poor for notability, due to their tendency to cover internet minutiae, as well as controversial issues. If there were more or better sources in addition to it I would not oppose its inclusion but we are at a stage where this is really all there is for him. He very well could be notable in the future, but he isn't now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Repubblica, a reliable source, is reporting the investigation by The Daily Dot and summarizing it. Let's not forget that the criteria mentioned in WP:BASIC are about coverage. La Repubblica has covered Captive Dreamer in an entire article, and it is independent of the other sources that def count towards notability: The Tyee, Mother Jones and The Verge.

You're saying "The Verge is nowhere close to being SIGCOV" without referring back to the criteria. How are two paragraphs a "trivial mention"?

Your last point, that "The Tyee sources almost all of its content from the Daily Dot" is flatly untrue. Please go back and compare both articles. Maybe a third of what's in Tyee is also in DD? And besides, the part where they source DD is to summarizing their findings, findings which they say that they themselves have replicated. So saying that it "sources almost all of its content" from DD is just not true, neither in proportion nor in content. WikiFouf (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no information in La Repubblica that does not stem from the Daily Dot investigation. None! Summarizing information from an unreliable source does not confer reliability upon it! About the Verge, if you think this:
Vance followed Captive Dreamer, one of the pseudonymous posters responsible for popularizing the smear. [...] The account, whose avatar is a photo of Branch Davidian leader David Koresh wearing a MAGA hat, frequently posts about its affinity for Adolf Hitler. This week, Captive Dreamer — whose likely identity was recently revealed by the Daily Dot — thanked Trump for mentioning Springfield in his recent State of the Union address. Captive Dreamer often posts about the dangers of mass immigration and the false promise of diversity [...]

is sigcov you are simply wrong.

The stuff that is in the Tyee that is new is largely in relation to Trinity and his father, and a selection of literally just recapping what he himself has said on Twitter, mostly about himself. Furthermore, even if we counted all these sources as reliable, this still would not be enough, given this is a tremendously controversial online BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not try to amalgamate "no consensus" and "unreliable" here. If the Daily Dot was something like Breitbart, neither La Repubblica, The Verge nor The Tyee would have reported their investigation. (The latter also replicated the investigation.) To quote the criteria, the question is whether or not reliable sources have covered the subject.

We may have different definitions of what a "trivial mention" is, but nothing in WP's criteria says that I'm objectively wrong. To me, a section of an article is not trivial.

And the examples from The Tyee that you say aren't about CD are:
The university - who responded to being asked about CD

The father - who responded to being asked about CD

His tweets - his tweets

WikiFouf (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus means it cannot be used for notability in almost all cases (especially a BLP).

Yes, and? Those aren't about him, and are casted as unconfirmed ("allegations that the son of its president runs an influential white supremacist X account [...] We are aware of allegations against an anonymous social media account unrelated to the University") this is a BLP, we cannot base this article's notability off "allegations".

In fact in the entire statement his father never actually mentions anything about his son, by name or implicitly, he just denounces the views he happens to hold. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, which is why the article doesn't present that identity as fact and attributes everything to Daily Dot. That's besides the point in any case, the notability of the subject does not come from his real-life identity but from his X account, which is described in all of these sources as influential. Just because The Tyee is interested in that real-life identity doesn't make their piece somehow not about Captive Dreamer WikiFouf (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References seem largely tangential. After a Google search, I'd assume that not too many better references significantly focusing on the subject aren't out there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect. I agree with PARAKANYAA's source analysis. The coverage in Mother Jones and The Verge is not SIGCOV, and it seems like a fundamentally bad idea to retain a BLP on this kind of subject where almost all of the content (including the coverage in The Tyee and La Repubblica) ultimately traces back to an investigation by an outlet for which there is no consensus on reliability. I would have otherwise probably suggested a redirect to Springfield pet-eating hoax, but I agree with PARAKANYAA that the book is still the primary topic. MCE89 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't the fact that The Tyee confirmed the findings of Daily Dot, not only make it not "sourced" from the latter, but also help make the case for the reliability of the DD piece? WikiFouf (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Well (1) as far as I can tell there's no explicit consensus on the reliability of The Tyee either — it's not a source I'm familiar with, and the only mention of it I could find in the WP:RSN archives is here. So it's not a "no consensus" source, but there isn't a clear consensus that it is unquestionably reliable either, which means I'm very sceptical that it could grant reliability to an explicitly "no consensus" source by proxy. And (2) the fact that they reported on the Daily Dot piece and replicated some of Monacelli and Phalen’s reporting doesn't mean they "confirmed" their investigation or that the Daily Dot piece is now "sourced from" The Tyee.
  
  In the end I could maybe see the case that the piece in The Tyee is a GNG-qualifying source, but that doesn't mean the piece in the Daily Dot is. So best case that still only leaves you with one GNG-qualifying source for what is a highly controversial BLP that I agree should be held to higher sourcing standards than usual. MCE89 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then recreate redirect to the soldier per nom; I don't think the history on this subject should be viewable from a redirect to the soldier. I would accept The Verge and Mother Jones's amount of coverage as SigCov and try to find a merge target if this were anything but a BiographyLivingPerson, which it is. IMO La Repubblica's only DailyDot repetition was the two sentences on possible identity, but everything else covered in that La Repubblica article (save for the "USAID funded the global left", which Mother Jones also says and isn't much defamatory) is too disparaging of a LivingPerson to be sourced to that single article alone. Therefore, it seems impossible for an article on this subject to comply with our content guidelines, and thus the subject fails notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect was hijacked so I find it considerably annoying that we would delete it this way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought deleting and recreating hijacked redirects with substantial history was the norm to make re-hijacking harder. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? It feels weird to delete the legitimate redirect history. I don't know either way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what that means? We should offload this agony onto our hapless closer, who'll certainly know what to do with a hijacked redirect.... I think Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Stöferle

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

Was deprodded without improvement with the rationale, "Take to AFD. Works are cited by journals advocating Austrian economics." Well, yes, they are. With a high citation count of a whopping 7. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG, nor do they meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched for reviews of his two books but did not find any. So I think both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR are out, and if there is any notability it will have to be found through WP:GNG. But of the sources in the article as nominated, [1], [3], [4], [11], and [14] are self-written employee/contributor profiles, [2] is an abstract-only link whose abstract does not mention the subject, [5-10] are dubiously-reliable and non-independent interviews, [12] is an audio version of one of his coauthored books, [13] is a sales link for the other book. None count towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Prakash

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

Subject doesn't seem to be notable - specifically, no WP:SIGCOV. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and India. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nominator's assessment. The sources provided consist primarily of routine business updates, including announcements related to the subject's appointment as President and Chief Business Officer. Beyond that, there are only a few passing mentions scattered across various business-related pieces. Junbeesh (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BDx Data Centers is also not notable. THEZDRX _{(User) |}_(Contact) 10:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. No sign of notability. Zuck28 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Ayrum

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

Cites primarily one source ("The Republic of Armenia" by Richard Hovannisian) which does not characterize this military action as a battle. Propose redirect to Armeno-Georgian_War#Armenian_offensive which more closely matches Hovannisian. Armeno-Georgian War states:

"On 16 December the Armenian left flank, commanded by Ter-Nikoghosian, now advanced from Lori into Georgia proper on Bolnis-Khachen and Katharinenfeld, while Korolov's right flank captured Hairum. Georgian forces, that consisted mostly of People's Guard units, offered poor resistance at Katharinenfeld and later at Shulaver, which put others forces in danger. The surprise attack at Hairum cost the Georgians an additional 500 men killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. "

A redirect would also deal with the edit warring over the infobox results. Annwfwn (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Armenia, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giri Balasubramanium

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

Subject does not seem to be notable upon searching for reliable, secondary sources. Also, the creator of this article seems to have a undisclosed connection to the subject. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability concerns aside, which perhaps others may address first, I would note as the original contributor to the article that the claims of connection to subject are unfounded and likely unnecessary to the PROD discussion. Giri was a popular quizmaster for many competitions I attended (with hundreds of other students), over 12 years ago, and the motivation to contribute came from that. I don't believe that qualifies as a close connection. Cheers Komodo (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A borderline WP:G11 article. Reads like promotion. None of the sources cited are reliable or do anything to establish notability. Junbeesh (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been updated significantly. The promotional content was removed and factual information was re-written in a WP:NPOV tone. Further, primary and promotional materials citations were removed and independent, secondary and reliable sources from media coverage were added. Let me know if this doesn't address your WP:NOTABLE concerns or if you have any other feedback. Komodo (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like an advertisement or promotional article. Possible Wp:COI. Zuck28 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been updated significantly and content contributed by possible COI editor has been removed in this re-write. Let me know if you have further feedback. Komodo (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Article was significantly re-written to address concerns noted in this article -- including secondary coverage and reliable sources. WP:NOTABILITY concerns should have been addressed as well with this coverage, but further information on why this article meets the criteria: (a) Significant coverage in reliable and independent sources: He has received coverage beyond simple announcements or listings. Sources like news outlets (Times of India, Deccan Herald snippets mentioning quizzes he hosts), articles about major events he leads (Tata Crucible coverage, TCS IT Wiz) but does not own, interviews (like in People Matters), and platforms featuring his talks (TEDx) constitute significant mentions in reliable contexts. While his company website or speaker profiles are primary or promotional, significant coverage exists independently. (b) Evidence of recognition and impact: His position as the quizmaster for the high-profile Tata Crucible quizzes since 2004 is a long-standing, nationally recognized role. Similarly, hosting the large-scale TCS IT Wiz/InQuizitive adds to this prominence. Greycaps, his company, has been described in multiple sources as one of Asia's largest in its niche. Finally, he is a frequent speaker, including on platforms like TEDx, that demonstrates a public profile and recognition in his field.

Tata Crucible --- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
TCS IT Wiz --- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Monument of Jiangsu Road

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

Currently, has zero in-depth sourcing. Could be redirected to Jiangsu Road (Lhasa), another poorly sourced stub by this same editor, which contains almost all the same information. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Młoda Liga

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

Fails to meet the requirements set forth by WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Relies exclusively on primary sources and is being used as simply a database for standings and scores. WP:NOTSTATS. There is no indication of significant coverage of this topic. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Volleyball, Europe, and Poland. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alien abduction claimants

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

This article is a POV fork of Alien abduction, which covers the topic in more depth, without the grossly undue credulous waffle herein, and without reducing an overwhelming scientific (etc) consensus to "mainstream" and "skeptics". It is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Psychology, and Social science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator states, this is a non-neutral POV article on alien abduction that relies heavily on numerous references to a single source. Given most of the "depth" in the article is using this unreliable source, there is no reason for this forked article.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Egregiously non-neutral, agree with nominator that this is an unnecessary fork. death pact (again) 14:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just redirect it to Alien abduction for now. We should definitely have an article on "the kinds of people who claim alien abductions" outside of the main article, there have been numerous reliable sources on that and it forms a discrete subtopic with its own considerations. Is this article what we should have? No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per PARAKANYAA. The vast majority of content has been sourced to John Mack and similar believer/advocates. A new article would need independent WP:FRIND sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork; entirely contained within Alien abduction#Abductees. The only new information is the section on the Hopkins Image Recognition Test, which appears to be a WP:FRINGE violation and exclusively cites Hopkins's original article, including in the Criticism subsection. (That article is also the only other major mention I can find of this test anywhere outside Wikipedia.) Some of the "Children as abductees" section may be worth merging, but it seems like excessive detail. Anerdw (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:

Bright, Richard (2006-08-17). "Porn Star Q&A: Brian Hansen". AVN.
"Meet Brian Hansen". Fleshbot. 2006-04-25.
"COLT Launches Buckshot Man Brian Hansen's Fan Site". XBIZ. 2007-02-06
"BRIAN HANSEN The life and times and pajamas of porn's latest superstar". DNA. No. 81. January 2006.
"Brian Hansen's Grabby Snatch". DNA Magazine #90. July 2007. p. 10. Retrieved 2025-04-20 – via Scribd.
Rice, G. Zisk (2010-01-08). "Buckshot Man Brian Hansen Returns in 'Lotus'". AVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (Victorious song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garde Wilson Lawyers

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

The sources are all about Zarah Garde-Wilson or cases she was involved in, but there's nothing that helps the law firm meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson. There are plenty of mentions of the firm's work on various cases, but I couldn't find anything with the necessary depth to count towards WP:NCORP either. Redirecting to its much more notable founder seems like the best option, especially since any notability the firm does have is likely inherited from her. MCE89 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson per correct analysis by MCE89. BD2412 T 19:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Zarah Garde-Wilson: Sources barely mention the law firm if at all. Not notable outside of Zarah Garde-Wilson. None of the sources could count towards NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson: Clear redirect per WP:NORG. TarnishedPath^talk 12:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zarah Garde-Wilson, a page that could also use attention for NPOV, tone, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Browning

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

The references are all primary sources with the exception of a WP:FORBESCON article. I couldn't find any SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE either. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, California, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline G11. Jclemens (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric J. Rose

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. There's a podcast interview with him, an local news article about him resigning from the local K9 unit, and a local news article used twice with two different links (issuu andnewspaper's website). The Hollywood Reporter article quotes him briefly but isn't about him or his security company at all. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Police. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Farooq (book)

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

I removed some unverified and unsourced content from the page. It was already a stub, and now it's even shorter. Deletion seems to be the most appropriate option.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 01:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some references on the Uzbek wiki (uz:Al-faruq) that look promising, but I can only access this one. ~~I've added some context. It could be notable; I lean towards keep.~~ I realized that those sources are considered unreliable by the nominator who removed them recently. Would be useful to know why they are unreliable, but I trust your judgment since I can't read them. Recon rabbit 19:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit: I initially added the sources while working on the Bibliography of Shibli Nomani. Although they are reliable, they are not directly relevant to the text, which is why I chose to remove them. However, if you find them useful, you're welcome to incorporate them. There is no shortage of credible sources available online. The primary concern is that, in its current state, this article does not meet the standards required for a standalone entry.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 20:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked source from the Journal of Islamic Studies and Humanities dedicates about two pages to this book, which led me to believe it was worthwhile to use it. If it does not meet the standards for an article on a book, it could be redirected back to Shibli Nomani until someone compiles more substantial information. Recon rabbit 20:38, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as I don’t see enough here for a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Mccapra, where are you suggesting this, and other articles, be Redirected to? Please always identify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m suggesting redirecting to Shibli Nomani, the author, where the work is mentioned. Mccapra (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'ariful Qur'an

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

This article has been tagged for original research, unreliable sources, and unverified content since 2018. Although I have attempted to address these concerns, the article remains poorly sourced and lacks sufficient content to stand as a standalone page. I propose a redirect.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom, as the page does not have verifiable sources. --Mozzcircuit (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect as proposed by nom or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Muhammad Shafi, the author, as I don’t see enough here for a stand alone article. Mccapra (talk)

Youth Service America

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

This article lacks notability - specifically, reliable, secondary sources that are not just interviews. WormEater13 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Washington, D.C.. WormEater13 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the nominator says, its the article that lacks citations, not the organization that lacks notability. I have added a half-dozen citations from reliable 3rd party sources and will continue to work on it until the nominator is satisfied. Freechild (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A large majority of the new sources that you've added to the article are interviews with individuals closely connected to the subject, and upon searching for notable sources about the subject, I can only seem to find primary sources. There's also many citations that you've added that don't have URLs. For example, one source you linked is the CEO of Youth Service America (Steve Culbertson) announcing that he will be speaking at his alma mater for a keynote, which is a clear connection to the subject, and is also not related to Youth Service America. WormEater13 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the necessary coverage to show WP:NORG is met here. All I can find are interviews with the leader and press releases. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it’s the article that needs citations, not inherently the organisation. OMGShay 92 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I am finding references and have added them but it can be hard to tell if they are primary or not if there's not a byline. It's challenging to dig things up for organizations. Nnev66 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I started to do a Google search for "Youth Service America" to add sourcing. It became immediately apparent that there is a lot of sourcing for this on Google (newspapers and Books). I just added one source, but there seems to be no end to the available reliable sourcing. I've added a link for the Google results under External Links. — Maile (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of sources exist as mentioned above. AfD is not clean up. Please do a proper BEFORE prior to nominating. Meet's WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Netherzone (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The organization meets notability requirements for organizations through its 30+ years of activity, partnerships with notable entities like AmeriCorps, and coverage in reliable sources.AndesExplorer (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Foster

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

No sign of notability, search returns nothing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Have added two references but the article still needs additional references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 16:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, on the basis that she fronted (as a main or co-host) several TV programmes, especially during the 90s and has been a reporter/presenter in various others. Had difficulty in finding much in the way of WP:SIGCOV specifically about her, although plenty of mentions of programmes/episodes she has been part of, or been the lead reporter in. I have added a ref for the 1993 'Missing' TV series, which does also discuss her personally (career and personal life) aside from the programme. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good find n the 'Missing' series! I feel it's a good start towards establishing notability but I feel without any more source discoveries, it still likely fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A good chunk of her career was during a time when coverage would have been "offline" (newspapers) or literally on the television, and without access to the BNA, it's harder to find. I did come across a republication article to the one I copied above, this time from the Liverpool Daily Post, which shows multi-region coverage. Before Missing, she also co-presented an emergency response programme (also in the Daily Mirror) and recorded footage herself, it seems (although this is an article moreso about the programme).

However I still stand by keeping, albeit weakly, given numerous involvements with TV series, programmes and documentaries over a reasonable period of time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Aziz Abdul Kareem

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

Declined prod with no attempt to add additional sources. Lacking third party in-depth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Kuwait. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded the article with new sources including Al Rai describing him as "the grandfather of training". Subject did much more than just competing at a single Olympics, he had a twelve-year career spanning multiple international championships for Kuwait. A Wikipedian who knows Arabic should take a look at these search results for further coverage. --Habst (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Habst's expansion, WP:NBASIC and common sense. Any understanding of the sport and country would indicate that a twelve-year international career with multiple Olympic appearances, and becoming known as the "grandfather of training" for his coaching after his playing career is, I guarantee, something that would be further covered significantly. The issue is that our access to sources from the time are ridiculously poor and this guy has like a dozen names he could have been covered under, and none of us speak Arabic, which makes this extremely hard to search for. Nonetheless a decent article has been developed with his significant accomplishments and coverage has been found showing he was known as a very accomplished figure in Kuwaiti athletics. He's notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the efforts of habst which seemed to have turned this article from just another Olympic stub to a potentially decent sourced article Scooby453w (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What secondary sources are we relying on here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As i stated the sources provided/referenced by habst namley https://archive.org/search?query=%22%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF+%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B2+%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%85%22&sin=TXT which seems to indicate several sources mentioning him (though I don't know Arabic there seems to be alot of them) Scooby453w (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply (the question was not just aimed at you btw - it was a general one). However, I'm not especially impressed by search results. The question is, what secondary sources do we have that we are relying on to say this subject meets WP:GNG. One of those might be secondary, but if no one has read any of them, then I do not see how we are ready to make that determination. To illustrate the problem, the first hit there reads (using machine translation):

The announcement of the Indian Court of First Instance No. A to 114 The plaintiff - Zahir Latif Aboud to the defendant Asaad Jawad Kadhim Al-Barrak lives in Hindi Mahalla Al-Kas Nada Send the invitation to you. If you do not attend, you will send an agent against you, you will plead against you according to the principles. Judge Fawzi Makhlif Hajim Court, Yadida Al-Karadah, to / Al-Ladih, their boxes are 1 Hassan Abdul Aziz Abdul Kareem Othman Abdel-Ardiz Abdel-Karim Barikh Ka This court issued a decision in the case number 43/1 1, which requires that you pay an amount of (0477) dinars.
Now that doesn't appear to be the page subject at all. It is certainly not about the subject, the mention, if it is anything, is passing, and that is very clearly a primary source. So that one is clearly out. What about the next one? Well that is an article listing those newly licensed to teach in primary education. The name or namesake of the subject is listed alongside a lot of others. Again, a passing mention in a primary source. We would not be entitled to gather from this that the subject is a teacher, and there is literally nothing else there. Now this issue will persist, because these are hits on the search string in an archive, but they are not actually sources. At the moment, I do not see any secondary sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhapes we could try finding someone who can understand arabic to look for some sources. if any exist for this subject they are likley in Arabic also i believe the al rai article was cited as a reliable source but it has to be downloaded to view it and i haven't had the time yet to read it Scooby453w (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy, I'm not sure what result you are referring to. The source cited in the article [19] is about the subject (not a namesake), and it's not merely a listing. See May 10, 1982 coverage page 12.

Of course I could go and search for Chris Evans (presenter) and the first result might be about the actor, that doesn't mean that the presenter isn't notable. You need to filter out the results that aren't relevant. --Habst (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the search in archive.org above from Scoony453w. The first source I see is [20] and the second is [21]. My point is that doing a search and presenting the hits is not finding sources. We need to be reading the sources and then discussing those that look good. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we already have sources cited in the article. Any additional sources we find on top of that could help build the case, but we agree it's not a negative indication that there will be namesakes in search results. --Habst (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these are secondary sources in your opinion? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis in Al Rai is secondary for one. --Habst (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please paste all the content on Kareem so we can actually validate this is secondary significant coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org is down just now. If you have a copy, I would appreciate a paste too. Otherwise it will have to wait. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage is on May 10, 1982 page 12 using archive.org's numbering; it is cited in the article. I don't have it saved if archive.org is down. You can also find it by just searching the subject's Arabic name in that archive. Can retrieve and copy-paste it later today if it's back up --Habst (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konyalıya Güzel Derler

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

Little to no coverage of the song, apart from lyrics. No indication of notability. (Please note that this is different from Konyali.) The only source here is a dead link to some website, so there is nothing to merge. Aintabli (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Raigarh (1689)

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

Another failed redirect, later contested by the author of the article. My reasoning is- why doesn't this have coverage around the battle itself? There's no need for aftermath without a substantial coverage of "Battle". Shakakarta (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, and Maharashtra. Shakakarta (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage found in reliable sources. More likely rename the article to "Siege of Raigarh" as it is well more known as this event in the books [22][23][24][25]. I suspect a POV forked attempt by the proposer to eliminate the battles that was lost by the Marathas. Hionsa (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely citing sources won't work, they don't give coverage beyond a few 2-4 lines. Do you even understand what "POV fork" means? Visit WP:POVFORK. Shakakarta (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hionsa, meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying per nom, when their argument is itself irrational is not gonna help. Let me bother myself to show what the given sources have to say:
- [26]: 3 pages yielded after 'Raigarh' filter search, of which none of these mentions any conflict.
- [27]: hardly yielded 3 lines around the conflict. Note that work of Jadunath was published a century ago.
- [28]: Quite similar to Jacques where the notability is established but lacks coverage.
- [29]: One line of mentions. Shakakarta (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unconvincing source analysis which is more like randomly thrown out of the blue without giving indications of pages. From what I can see the one and only citation in the article has a passing blurb of mentions. FWIW, it could be given entry at List of battles involving the Maratha Confederacy. Heraklios 19:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Deccan Wars. One source—that of Jadunath Sarkar—gives significant coverage across multiple pages. However, as Shakakarta notes above, he was writing in the 1950s and his work is dated. In the seeming absence of modern sources which provide significant coverage—the others cited by Hionsa above most certainly do not—merging this content to Deccan Wars, where it unaccountably seems to be absent, seems the best call. Nonetheless, if modern sources which provide SIGCOV are identified, please ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 7 sources on the page. Sources 3,5,7 sources are same and unreliable WP:AGEMATTERS, about Maasir-i-Alamgiri, an account of Emperor Aurangzeb's(1620-1707) reign that was composed after the death of the emperor by Saqi Musta'd Khan at the behest of Inayetullah Khan Kashmiri, the emperor's last secretary. Source 1,6 are same by Jacques with no significant coverage. Source 2,4 have no significant coverage on the Battle either. RangersRus (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am leaning towards merging, but I see many similar pages marked for deletion, and the issue is the same: lack of reliable sources. The sources are being randomly thrown together, and the pages are not yet ready for Wikipedia. But they may be notable. Unicorbia (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG ,clearly lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the merge to Deccan Wars suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case this was kept, kindly move the page to Battle of Raigarh which is a DAB only listing this article. Thanks and No Opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantis, the Fire Monster

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

Seems unnecessary. Gigantis, the Fire Monster is already covered in detail at the Godzilla Raids Again article, in the American version subsection. Gigantis was just a shorter English dubbed version of Godzilla Raids Again. It wasn't a "heavily localized" version like Godzilla, King of the Monsters! or Godzilla 1985 were; those had some Japanese footage removed in favor of new US-produced footage that was inserted for the US release, as well as the original director's intent altered by the Americans.

But Gigantis doesn't have that -- at least not to a severe degree. Both Godzilla Raids Again and Gigantis are practically the same film, save for some minor creative liberties in the English dub's dialogue. It seems like overkill to dedicated a whole article to an English dub that has minimal coverage that, again, is already covered in detail in another article.

If additional proof is needed of the article's lack of importance, no one's edited on that article since 2006. Even it's own creator, Keratos2190, has been inactive since 2006 as well. I propose simply merging it with Godzilla Raids Again. Armegon (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Armegon (talk) 05:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - When I looked through sources for this article, there were a lot of sources. These are the best ones I could find [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. Once again, this isn't just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's an WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT. But also, not only is it an WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it's an WP:IDONTLIKEWHOISFIXINGIT. When I was exhausted from my first phase of reworking the article, I was expecting you to add more information and sources, but no, you're just nominating things for deletion. Do you actually have problems with my writing???? GojiraFan1954 (talk) 07:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm onto my second phase of reworking the article. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 09:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a merge would be highly undue and the film meeting the requirements for notability, a standalone page is possible. I don’t understand this nomination. -Mushy Yank. 12:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs work, but is clearly independently notable. It is not a mere English dub of the original film. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK#3 and WP:SK#1 and speedy close per WP:SNOW. This does not sound like a AFD nomination. This feels like a rant on the subject itself. Plus, I'm certain nom did not do a proper WP:BEFORE. If you want to merge the article, kindly open a discussion on the talk page and not nominate the article on AFD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that is what I was also thinking on my comment, this AfD is a rant, I completely agree. GojiraFan1954 (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This feels more fitting for a merge discussion, and while I normally advocate for keeping discussions to the AfD venue, I feel as though in this case this conversation would be better held at a merger, where independent notability can be more adequately discussed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast International Model United Nations

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

I had created this page, but am not fully sure if the sources currently listed or the sources available are enough to establish notability. So would love to get this into a deletion discussion, to get a consensus soon. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Nagaland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like you're the only user who has substantively edited the article. If you want the article deleted, you can tag it with G7. I don't think AfD is the appropriate venue to seek help with improving it, but I'm not sure what is, although someone more familiar with cases like these may provide more meaningful advice. If you don't want to delete it but aren't sure it's ready for publication yet, it can probably be moved to your userspace or draft space to allow you to improve it. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest vines

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

Unfortunately, this list fails on the guidelines for notability of lists. WP:NLIST I have not been able to locate any source that discusses longest vines as a group. In addition I have not been able to locate any sources that support the claims for notability/inclusion of most of the list items. For example "Longest monocot". "The longest parasitic vine." etc.

This is a clear example of WP:SYNTH with the editors doing original research. This would make a great article in a popular science magazine, but WP:FORUM. Wikipedia is not a place for this kind of original publication.

I discussed these issues with the article's primary editor on the talk page, but they have not been able to provide any source that would deal with the notability issue. I placed a synth notice on the page in October of 2024 and no other editor has responded on the talk page or provided a source.

I don't know that there is anywhere appropriate to redirect this article to. Maybe to matchbox bean (Entada phaseoloides) as the probable longest vine. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Adams

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources in the article are all primary to the teams the subject played for, while a BEFORE got some results for unrelated people and passing mentions like [[37]] but nothing significant. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; existing refs are primary sources. Unable to find secondary sources to show significant coverage. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 02:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark (newspaper)

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

Non-notable newspaper, does not pass WP:NCORP. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY or local in scope, a WP:BEFORE search reveals no significant coverage of note. Author has a WP:COI and likely undisclosed WP:PAID interest. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Apologies that I’m relatively new at this. I attempted to disclose my conflict that I’m the co-owner and editor of this newspaper. I was not paid by anyone to create this page; I did it in my free time on a weekend. The list of California papers ([[List of newspapers in California#Daily newspapers]]) is full of dozens of other weeklies with nothing exceptionally notable about them at all, and with circulation the same or smaller than ours. We’ve been named the best small newspaper in America several times by the National Newspaper Association (National Newspaper Association and California News Publishers Association (California News Publishers Association), which seems more significantly notable than than other non-daily newspapers with non-deleted wikis, eg the Salinas Valley TribuneSalinas Valley Tribune — with all due respect to my colleagues there! Thanks for your consideration and happy to answer any questions. Kzhessel (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Kzhessel (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions that newspapers qualify under the criteria for "corporations and organizations" is fairly absurd. Yes it's a product but so are films, video games, books, which we have our own guidelines for, or any other kind of media, which we do not - clearly NCORP is not meant to cover "literally any piece of media", because that is absurd and counter to the spirit of notability. Better to go by WP:GNG or the suggestions at WP:NMEDIA... under which this does not pass, if the sourcing is all there is. This page does have no independent sources at the moment and needs to be largely trimmed. If this is all there is I would lean delete but if there is more coverage from outside sources (as the award would indicate there probably is) I would be more sympathetic. This seems like a relatively significant local paper. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing RfC about making Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability an SNG, so I would look to that for guidance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more citations. I'm not sure what kind of additional citations are needed though -- individual papers are typically the source of news, not the discussion of news. When they're not national newspapers and they get written about by other media, it's usually because something very bad happened, eg, the 5,000 circulaton Manteca Bulletin has plagiarism allegations. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW we do have other newspapers citing us as the source of original/breaking news, eg, https://sfstandard.com/2024/09/05/tiburon-ridge-nearly-doubles-open-space-size/ ; https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ex-boyfriend-guilty-of-attempted-murder-in-12559393.php ; https://www.marinij.com/2018/09/18/michael-mina-to-open-first-marin-restaurant-in-tiburon/ -- but we have no reason to include it in the wiki. I have included some other outside sources for citation though. (Disclosure, I'm the page creator and co-owner/editor of this paper.) Kzhessel (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- although I could argue that being a significant local newspaper is notable in some cases, but I do not find this one passing WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I can appreciate that, I'm having difficulty with both the criteria and the notion that this newspaper would be deleted when other non-daily California papers smaller and/or less significant than ours remain, some of which also have substantial wikis: Daily Democrat, Whittier Daily News, Idyllwild Town Crier, Sonoma Valley Sun, Placerville Mountain Democrat, Paso Robles Press, Half Moon Bay Review, Palisadian-Post, Monterey County Weekly, The Mendocino Beacon, Madera Tribune, Larchmont Chronicle, Lompoc Record, Hollister Free Lance, The Healdsburg Tribune, Selma Enterprise, North County News Tribune, Del Norte Triplicate, Hellenic Journal, Inyo Register, Atascadero News.

(Disclosure: I'm the page author and owner-editor of the paper under discussion.) Kzhessel (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ty G. Allushuski

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

All sources do not colloborate information and at most could be used as external links. I cannot find sources otherwise. Roasted (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Sports, and Mississippi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability criteria. I cannot find any evidence to satisfy the notability criteria for a BLP. This is the extent of biographical content: "Ty G. Allushuski (born May 23, 1986)", that reduces this article to a resume. The subject's article does not qualify as a pseudo biography as there is no single event of notability. There is LinkedIn, Wikiwand, Facebook, and other promotional or generally acceptable sources. It seems nearly everybody wants a Wikipedia article. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Westbrook (musician)

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

Upon searching up the subject, I don't see any reliable sources available to add to this article, which leaves me wondering if the subject is even notable in the first place. The current state of the article also only has one reference. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a reference to the Grove Encyclopaedia article; along with the Larkin work already referenced in the article, that makes two reference books containing entries about the subject, which I think is sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO criterion 1. AllyD (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see many refs in authoritative publications on jazz, contemporary music and related topics. Admittedly there is not much in depth coverage but I believe this passes criterion 3 of WP:NCREATIVE - “ The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.” Mccapra (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that Kate Westbrook is not considered "notable". I have made a bit of a pig's ear in trying to add more information about her being unfamiliar with the correct proceedure. Kate continues to perform with Mike westbrook and occasionally witth solo gigs. She continues to paint and currently has an exhibition at the Chelsea Arts Club and another in May 2025 at the Brownston gallery in Modbury. Information about her paintings can be seen on her gallery site https://www.westbrookjazz.co.uk/gallery/index.shtml and her activities as a musician can be seen on https://www.westbrookjazz.co.uk/katewestbrook/c_projects.shtml I hope somebody who understands Wikipedia better than I do can update and use the sites I have mentioned as additional references. Chris53 (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm finding a lot on this Kate Westbrook, including: [38], [39], and [40]. Her work is held in the National Archives [41]. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Netherzone (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Thanks to everybody above for participating in the discussion! Based on the new sources introduced in this discussion and in the article, I am now confident that the subject is notable. I will be withdrawing this nomination.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delos W. Emmons

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

Individual is listed as a founder of Huntington, WV, however the sourcing does not bear this out. Rather, he was appointed by the founder to manage the purchase of land for the city. Additionally, there is little to no WP:SIGCOV of this individual, with most mentions only in passing. The only secondary source writing that really focuses on this person is an entry in the local newspaper's series on old pictures of the city, one of which includes a photo of the subject. Recommend this content be merged with Huntington, West Virginia#History. nf utvol (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Huntington, West Virginia#History - agree with nominator. I believe it would be best to merge the article into the history section of Huntington, WV. I don't think the subject is notable enough to warrant a standalone article at the moment, unless further sources are presented. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge based on the meagre information about Emmons himself, and excluding information about his family, which would only be expected if he warranted a more expansive article or some of them were notable enough to have their own. With no prejudice against recreating it if enough facts of significance come to light about his role in developing the city. If he was primarily Collis P. Huntington's land agent, then there may not be enough to do so. I note that it's often difficult to locate local historical data; the types of recent sources cited here only provide "factoids", and period sources aren't easily available online. P Aculeius (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The brother-in-law of the founder does not inherit notability. There is likely little doubt that the subject was instrumental in the establishment and growth of the place. This is the way such towns, which include railroad and lumber towns, were built and grew. Lacking sources, this does not afford him co-founder status. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tahlita Buethke

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

No significant coverage in independent sources. Lower level amateur footballer. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources are independent of the subject, nor was anything I could find on Google. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Conservatory of Music

AfDs for this article:

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

COI or UPE editing of institute with not enough in-depth coverage to show that they meet WP:GNG. C4 was declined, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, Schools, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to List of colleges in British Columbia#Applied institutes as an ATD. Yes, it is named wrong. It likely should be "List of learning institutions in British Columbia". That is a discussion for that article though. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shine On (Jet song)

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

Non-notable song. 0 coverage in sources. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, and United Kingdom. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: For the most part all non-notable songs can be redirected to albums, and non-notable albums can be redirected to band/musician page. This one can be redirected to Shine On (Jet album). LastJabberwocky (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above reason. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added references - clearly satisfies the requirements of WP:NSONG - charted internationally and has featured in numerous television shows. Dan arndt (talk) 08:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep}: Agree with Dan arndt, several SIGCOV sources; NME and LA Times each wrote an article dedicated solely to Shine On. LastJabberwocky (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LastJabberwocky, both of those sources are album reviews—this article is about the title track. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus yet, can we get a review of the article's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to album; it's important to note that all of these sources are about the album Shine On—not the song. Song fails NSONG. The article also seems to cite UGC from Sputnik Music. All of this can be merged to the album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 09:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the parent album: I previously voted for keep, but upon closer inspection (looking at it in the morning), I couldn't find any mentions of the songs. Mostly general discussions about the album and the Pitchfork monkey. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynda

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

nn musc group. Tagged sicne July 2024 with no improvmnt --Altenmann >talk 00:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. No reliable sources found upon searching the subject, which means there is a significant amount of reasoning to believe that the subject is not notable.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]