Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< May 06 May 08 >

Purge server cache

Osvaldo Palazzi

[edit]
Osvaldo Palazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NSPORTS-failing LUGSTUB-a-like. No corresponding IT Wiki article.

The article makes repeated statements about Palazzi winning individual "medals" at the gymnastics tournaments in Turin and Paris. In reality no individual medals were awarded until 1922, with individual scores (not medals) only being recognised retrospectively after 1922. Scores conferred retrospectively years after the event, as a statistical artefact, cannot indicate notability, since they are not subject to the same assumption that they will have generated significant coverage that usually attends such awards. Palazzi's team won the team bronze in Paris and Turin, but Palazzi does not inherit the notability of his team per WP:NTEAM. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. There was a prominent Italian priest by the same name born in 1917. The only reference in the article is to a bare list that can be seen here. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen him as an Olympic medalist, not a world medalist. I will withdraw my vote. Svartner (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, a note that even if he met NOLY, per NSPORT the article is still required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Person meets WP:NGYMNAST with significant coverage likely to exist. If someone has access to appropriate access to offline Italian sources without being able to find content, please let me know. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of WP:NGYMNAST is he supposed to meet? Significant coverage is not likely to exist simply as a result of retrospectively-awarded individual scores given decades after the event. No individual medal were awarded at this event. FOARP (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be your opinion, but you can’t claim that. Retrospective Olympic medalists have for instance received coverage. 95.98.65.177 (talk),
  • Delete - In fact he does not meet WP:NGYMNAST as that specifically refers to individual medals, not team ones, and despite what the page says, there was no pommel horse individual medal at that event. But, in any case, even if he did meet NGYMNAST, it is still required that the page must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. We cannot get away with just saying such sources are likely to exist. Subject does not meet GNG as we do not have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Offline Italian language sources are likely to only include primary sources (newspaper reports, event programmes, certificates, records etc. are all primary sources). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, I didn't know that. Do you have a reliable source for your claim? 95.98.65.177 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What claim? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he means the fact that no individual medals were awarded? Here on page 76. FOARP (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, indeed thanks! But I don’t see that Wikipedia is wrong at all the pages so I started searching. I see in this document their achievements are recognized retrospectively. And they are also included official in the overall medal table. So with this recognition you can’t state on the basis of your OR-reasoning that NGymnastics doesn’t apply as it is likely that there is written receiving recognition. There were also no medals awarded at the 1896 Summer Olympics, while retrospectively they are also medalists (counts also for the total medal table) and have received coverage because they received the recognition. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't at all likely that retrospectively-awarded scores, given decades after the event, in championships that were not considered "world championships" at the time, will have attracted any significant coverage at all. This may well be the reason why the World Championships aren't explicitly mentioned as "elite competitions" at WP:NGYMNAST, and shouldn't simply be assumed as being in there now in all cases.
    To see that this is so you need only read contemporaneous reports of these events (e.g., 1 2 3) - a single paragraph or two about the event as a whole in which individual events aren't mentioned at all (because everyone at the time thought it was just a team event, because that's what it was).
    It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time. The question is whether independent and reliable sources have gone along with this and given significant coverage to the subject on that basis - as far as I can see they haven't.
    That last point matters a lot - because WP:NSPORTS2022 says that sports bios have to have at least one instance of significant coverage in an independent reliable source. FOARP (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your extensive reasoning, and I understand your opinion. However it is still it’s not possible with own research to claim that the person is not meeting NGYMNASTS. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing that WP:NGYMNAST is met requires positive research to show that it is met. Specifically: it requires you to show that the competition was an elite one equivalent to the modern events listed. The 1911 Turin tournament was not, not least because individual medals weren’t awarded at it. FOARP (talk) 04:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether or not Palazzi was awarded any individual medal at the time, can you point to specific language within WP:NGYMNAST that states that the individual medals won at a competition had to have been awarded at the time and not retroactively? I see no specific language within NP:GYMNAST that specifically deals with the issue of retroactively vs contemporaneously awarded medals. Also, in the website that you have leaned on heavily for your deletion nominations and edits, Gymnastics-History.com, very many uses and reproductions of original source materials therein show that some of these games were covered by a number of periodicals of the time, thereby further satisfying notability criteria. Starting with the very first of these games, according to Gymnastics-History.com, a quote-in-translation from the August 17, 1903 edition of Le Matin states "This is an innovation: for the first time we have seen elite gymnasts of various nationalities compete among themselves, chosen by each Federation from among its best men.". This helps establish the notability of the very first of these tournaments. Furthermore, elsewhere you have stated that, officially or not, that these were not truly Worldwide (not exclusively European) championships. However, the all-around champion at these games Joseph Martinez was French-Algerian, born in Algeria, which is in Africa, not Europe; additionally 1909 and 1913 All-Around Champion from these games Marco Torres was also French-Algerian, born in Algeria, Africa. You would know this if you had read the leader for the article of the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships where you, further on down the article, denied the worldwide nature of these games "as such" due merely to the technicality that, at the time, the FIG was still termed the FEG. Well, there's also the technicality of Martinez and Torres not being exclusively European - they were also African. QuakerIlK (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition (see below)". No individual medals were awarded at the 1911 Turin tournament. Any award was only made decades later. And as has been pointed out numerous times, at least one instance of IRS SIGCOV is needed in any event. FOARP (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another thing I think I need to point out about your reasoning is that when you say "It's true that FIG has decided at some point in the last 110 years to engage in a bizarre kind of make-believe in which atheletes competing for countries that didn't exist at the time (and even don't exist now e.g., Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia), were awarded "medals" that didn't exist at the time, for events that didn't happen at the time", you might be looking at the overall body of work made by the FIG, IOC, Wikipedians, and other sources and be confused by the seeming lack of consistency with how medals are awarded to countries contemporaneously and respectively. For the majority of the history of the sport of gymnastics at the level of the modern Olympic Games and the World Championships (1896-present), both CzechoSlovakia and Yugoslavia existed. Those countries' efforts mattered at the time 'and still matter as they are a part of history. As for the issue of events not existing at the time, my understanding is that even at the Olympic Games, whereas the sport of gymnastics is concerned, there was no separate, dedicated individual competition at all until the 1972 Olympics, but nevertheless, individual medals were awarded based upon the performances of the individual athletes at the team competition. By the logic you have consistently employed in your rationales for deletion, this would then call for the deletion of the articles for such giants in the sport as Larisa Latynina, who for many years had more total Olympic medals than any other athlete in the history of the Olympic games, and Vera Caslavska who is the only gymnast ever, male or female, to win Olympic Gold on every individual event. You have to look at the logic and rationales that you have employed consistently and as a bottom line and realize the implications that such rationales have for massive, widespread deletionism. As much of a minefield of seemingly contradictory policies and scattered nuances as Wikipedia seems to be at times, your consistent insistences, if applied uniformly, would cause the content of Wikipedia to end up being only a very small fraction of what it is now, at least whereas the world of sport is concerned.QuakerIlK (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter whether the subject meets NGYMNAST or not if they do not have IRS SIGCOV sourcing cited in the article. Articles are not deleted solely because the subject doesn't meet NGYMNAST, they are deleted because they fail the requirement for sportsperson articles. The only impact meeting NGYMNAST would have is if an IRS SIGCOV source was already identified, at which point the rebuttable presumption of further GNG-meeting coverage existing could potentially delay needing to demonstrate the subject actually does meet the "multiple sources" requirement for GNG. Instead of spending thousands of words trying to convince us that retroactive recognition "counts" for NGYM purposes, you should instead be looking for IRS SIGCOV sources. JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NGYMNAST, as a subsidiary of NSPORT, requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article, which has not been satisfied. The entire point of the subcriteria, post-NSPORT2022, is to predict which athletes are/were most likely to have received GNG coverage. Recognition by independent sources, such as contemporary or retrospective media, is necessary, and empirically positive predictive power has been constrained to individual medalists. For that and other reasons, retroactive "awarding" of individual medals by non-independent bodies like FIG would not count for the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Delete is not the best option for a person meeting WP:GYMNAST and would redirecting to Italy at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships in any case be a better solution. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - People have been canvased in to this discussion by this non-neutral notice at the Gymnastics project. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy/Paste from a separate AfD: I guess it's my turn. As others have noted, FOARP AfD'ed many articles targeted all under the same rationale which directly affected WikiProject Gymnastics. In an effort to have a centralized discussion, QuakerIlK included not just potential !keep votes, but those who had voted for deletion on the other conversations as well. It does not appear anyone new has since joined this AfD as a result. GauchoDude (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Posting a link saying that you want to vote keep on all of the discussions listed there, to the Gymnastics project, is a clear invitation to project members to go and vote keep in them. That's the essence of canvassing. FOARP (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is moot anyway because WikiProject Gymnastics is a ghost town nowadays. The previous five small topics there go back to 2023 and the recent archives don't look much better. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 23:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I overturned a bad close by a new (not autoconfirmed) editor. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...and another one by an IP. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Djsky

[edit]
Djsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not indicate how the subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. I'm unable to find significant coverage of him in reliable sources, either English or Arabic. ... discospinster talk 21:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the musician is only covered in sources in the context of a single event, and does not seem notable on his own. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:SIGCOV. ApexParagon (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Reality–virtuality continuum

[edit]
Reality–virtuality continuum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This concept was published in one single paper, and does not have wide acceptance among media, researchers, or any present papers. If anything, it should be listed at each of the authors' pages on Wikipedia if they have pages, however this concept is biased and incomplete, and should not have its own Wikipedia page. JustMakeTheAccount (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The given rationale for deletion does not make sense to me. A quick google scholar search for the term turns up numerous papers. The original paper has 5000+ citations according to google scholar and searching for "reality virtuality continuum" for articles since 2024 results in over 1000 hits. Seems to be a widely discussed concept/seminal paper among researchers and is a topic of recent interest. If other reasons for deletion cannot be given, then this article should be kept and improved. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eco-warrior

[edit]
Eco-warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was recently the target of a vandal and a student editor who added a lot of AI slop. It's not much better now that it's been reverted. This is just another term for environmentalists (which itself was recently on AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmentalist, and was redirected to environmentalism). Wikipedia is not a dictionary. None of the linked people describe themselves, or have been described by others, as an eco-warrior. The one citation doesn't even use the word eco-warrior. Apocheir (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eco warrior is a dab page. Eco-warrior seems like the more common spelling, so the dab page could be moved to that name after the deletion. Apocheir (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Eco warrior to this page, then make Eco warrior a redirect, per Apocheir ApexParagon (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then move Eco warrior to Eco-warrior as suggested. It does seem plausible to me that a non-DICTDEF article could be written about the term eco-warrior, but I struggle to see how its scope would differ from radical environmentalism and environmental movement. Willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone wants to WP:HEY this and show that a distinct and useful article can be written about the concept of an “eco-warrior” (there are definitely plenty of sources, e.g. [1]). But I don’t think there’s any value in keeping this largely unsourced list of people. MCE89 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester, Minnesota racial slur video

[edit]
Rochester, Minnesota racial slur video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP mess. At this stage it is impossible for this article to not be a BLP mess. Fails the recommended criteria for events at WP:EVENTCRIT, and at this stage it is WP:TOOSOON to have secondary sourcing. Not notable and as mentioned it is not possible to have this article without it being a BLP disaster. Sources are largely poor. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. I think we're actually doing a pretty good job with BLP in the current version of the article. There's nothing in there that isn't directly, materially provable from cited sources. I'm !voting soft keep because it's fairly early to call this notable, even though it has gotten a decent breath of coverage across geographies and has already started to recieve commentary (some of which is noted in the article). It would be much easier to determine whether it passes WP:EVENTCRIT a year from now though, which is why I fall on soft keep. I'd also push back on the claim that the "sources are largely poor", I threw together a SAT and I'm happy with the quality of the sources (I also noted in the location/scope of the cited newspaper to test breadth of coverage).
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes WP:NBC Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes WP:THEINDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
https://archive.ph/Fshn8 (US national news)
 Yes Yes WP:NBC Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes WP:CBS Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes WP:RSP, ABC news entry Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes WP:WAPO Yes ✔ Yes
Yes ~ WP:NEWSWEEK Yes ~ Partial
Yes ~ WP:RSNOI Yes ~ Partial
Yes Yes WP:THEINDEPENDENT Yes ✔ Yes
Yes No WP:DAILYWIRE, being used for POV rather than verification. Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes WP:RSPADL Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes WP:NEWREPUBLIC Yes ✔ Yes
Yes ~ WP:NATIONALREVIEW Yes ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wasianpower, are these all original reporting? If so, that would make them primary sources. I'd expect to see this situation used as a WP:CASESTUDY for internet racism controversies more broadly if it were notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The best article written so far about this incident is, IMO, this article by The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/shiloh-hendrix-slur-karmelo-anthony-stabbing-maga-b2745949.html Some1 (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, some of them are original reporting, but definitely not all of them (the second independent source for example is firmly secondary, while the local/affiliate sources are the most primary). There are a few "case studies" per se (see the Daily Wire example and examples in the independent), but we're definitely still in the initial round of coverage. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional sources which could potentially be helpful to establish notability: [2], [3], [4]. I've added them to the SAT and struck and struck primary sources. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would call this incident and the resulting fundraiser notable--using the dictionary definition, not Wikipedia's. We've seen thousands, even millions, raised for those accused of murder, but have we ever seen nearly a million dollars raised for a woman who used the N-word against a (reportedly) 5-year old Black autistic child? Some1 (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you said, not Wikipedia's definition of notable. Plenty of odd things happen. We do not write articles for them unless they pass our guidelines. This does not pass WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed A. Alrodhan

[edit]
Waleed A. Alrodhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page which has had several problems including prior COI/UPE editor, and a PROD supported by two editors. Prior promo has been removed, with the argument "as the person is not significantly less notable compared to other Saudi academics whose pages exist without question". That is not a valid criterion. Page fails WP:NPROF with an h-factor of 7, plus nothing to prove WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trace Fryer

[edit]
Trace Fryer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've done a deep BEFORE search on this person by all three names she has used, as well as the name of her gallery, but have not found much more than social media, primary sources, user-submitted content. Note that there are two other people named Trace Fryer out there so a careful search is necessary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. There were couple mentions of shows that took place at her gallery, but no mention of her or about the gallery itself, so does not meet WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. As a musician I could find nothing. I found one thing that she wrote, for STEAM Journal, but that's not enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Current sourcing is not enough to establish notability either. Bringing this here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The uniqueness of the artist working with and publishing articles in animal culture and related issues is noteworthy. Starlighsky (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]

Tommy Gunn (toy)

[edit]
Tommy Gunn (toy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find sources, seems to fail WP:NPRODUCT, long time unsourced page. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Arkell (disambiguation)

[edit]
James Arkell (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2/3 of the people listed here do not have an article of their own, and thus do not meet notability standards. Gommeh ➡️ Talk to me 20:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Quinlan (author)

[edit]
Patrick Quinlan (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author and onetime political candidate. Doesn't seem to have received a great deal of coverage, and the article reads like a promotional bio you'd find on his website. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C. Jacobson

[edit]
Matthew C. Jacobson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman and onetime political candidate whose main claim to fame is that he used to lead a nonprofit that doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I can't find any news coverage of him since his 2010 campaign, not that he ever really received any in-depth coverage to begin with. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Robitaille

[edit]
John Robitaille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman and onetime political candidate. I don't see an argument for him being notable. I couldn't find any news coverage of him from the last 15 years. There were some articles from November 2024 about a candy store owned by a John Robitaille, but that store was in California, so I doubt it's the same person. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This lacks credible sources

Hosting Controller

[edit]
Hosting Controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references establish notability. I see only a few relevant hits on Google (The company name is very generic, though.): [6][7][8][9] and similar. All of them seemingly fail all criteria of WP:SIRS. This PDF could possibly have some SIRS coverage on the product, but I think that that is too little to establish notability. Janhrach (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Heschmeyer

[edit]
Joe Heschmeyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only example of third-party coverage is this 2020 interview in a Catholic magazine. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jima Francis

[edit]
Jima Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This South Sudanese journalist does not appear to be notable under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in the article (or found in BEFORE search) are all his own writing ([13]) or sources affiliated with him and thus not independent ([14], [15], [16], [17]). Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Australians Party

[edit]
Great Australians Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only two mentions in Crikey ([18], [19]). toweli (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Major general nik mohammad sahak

[edit]
Major general nik mohammad sahak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was created by User:Nik Mohammad sahak who is literally named after the article's subject. The draft was rejected multiple times. A google search doesn't yield anything about the name. The guy allegedly died in 1398 and has a photograph of him. Photography was invented in 1826. The only google search result is a document at WikiLeaks. Laura240406 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 1398 is probably based on a different dating system, possibly Islamic? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that would put his death at 1970 which makes sense Laura240406 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Afghanistan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does that photo look doctored to anyone else? It looks like the face has been copied and pasted on top of someone else's body. That aside, this fails WP:V, which is a core policy. Using the Farsi name, I can find some social media coverage of a "General Nik Mohammad Khan Mangal" but nothing about this person. Given that the username matches the article's subject, I would bet that this is a vanity hoax. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this person is a real historical figure since I did find a mention of the article subject in a declassified US government document while searching. However, there probably isn't significant coverage since searching the native language name from the article doesn't yield many results on Google. All in all, I think this is probably a WP:GNG fail but open to hearing from editors who speak any Afghan languages on what sources exist.Aspening (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even on the off chance this isn't a hoax, it definitely isn't notable enough for an article due to the utter lack of sources covering this person
ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Fahey

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I checked WP:NPROF but didn't think to check WP:NAUTHOR (seriously, just writing a book makes you notable?) (non-admin closure)‎ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Fahey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic, likely COI per the username of the first editor Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overly lengthy copy-paste. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linkedin
AboutAbout
David M. Fahey is professor emeritus of history, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, where he taught modern British and world history, 1969-2009. He is the author or editor of a dozen books. Edwin Mellen Press has published three of Fahey’s books, The Collected Writings of Jesse Forsyth, 1847-1937: The Good Templars and Temperance Reform on Three Continents (1988), The Women’s Temperance Crusade in Oxford, Ohio (2010), and E. Lawrence Levy and Muscular Judaism, 1851-1932: Sport, Culture, and Assimilation in Nineteenth-Century Britain (2014). ABC-CLIO has published two historical encyclopedias that he helped edit, Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History (2003) and Alcohol and Drugs in North America (2012). The University Press of Kentucky published his monograph Temperance and Racism: John Bull, Johnny Reb, and the Good Templars (1996). His other drink-related publications include Temperance Societies in Late Victorian and Edwardian England (2020), The Politics of Drink in England, from Gladstone to Lloyd George (2022), "Temperance and the Liberal Party: Lord Peel's Report, 1899," Journal of British Studies (1971), "Brewers, Publicans, and Working Class Drinkers: Pressure Group Politics in Late Victorian and Edwardian England," Histoire sociale (1980), [with Padma Manian] “Poverty and Purification: The Politics of Gandhi’s Campaign for Prohibition,” Historian (2005), “Temperance Internationalism: Guy Hayler and the World Prohibition Federation,” Social History of Alcohol and Drugs (2006), "Why Some Black Lodges Prospered and Others Failed: The Good Templars and the True Reformers," Ethnic and Racial Studies (2013), "Worrying about Drink," Brewery History (2016)and several more recent articles in Brewery History, as well as entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals. Outside alcohol historical studies, he has written about African American fraternal lodges. He is a bibliographer for world history. He edited The Black Lodge in White America: "True Reformer" Browne and His Economic Strategy (Wright State UP, 1994); Frank J. Merli, The Alabama, British Neutrality and the American Civil War (Indiana UP, 2004); and Milestone Documents in World Religions (Schlager, 2011); The English Heritage (Forum, 1988).David M. Fahey is professor emeritus of history, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, where he taught modern British and world history, 1969-2009. He is the author or editor of a dozen books. Edwin Mellen Press has published three of Fahey’s books, The Collected Writings of Jesse Forsyth, 1847-1937: The Good Templars and Temperance Reform on Three Continents (1988), The Women’s Temperance Crusade in Oxford, Ohio (2010), and E. Lawrence Levy and Muscular Judaism, 1851-1932: Sport, Culture, and Assimilation in Nineteenth-Century Britain (2014). ABC-CLIO has published two historical encyclopedias that he helped edit, Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History (2003) and Alcohol and Drugs in North America (2012). The University Press of Kentucky published his monograph Temperance and Racism: John Bull, Johnny Reb, and the Good Templars (1996). His other drink-related publications include Temperance Societies in Late Victorian and Edwardian England (2020), The Politics of Drink in England, from Gladstone to Lloyd George (2022), "Temperance and the Liberal Party: Lord Peel's Report, 1899," Journal of British Studies (1971), "Brewers, Publicans, and Working Class Drinkers: Pressure Group Politics in Late Victorian and Edwardian England," Histoire sociale (1980), [with Padma Manian] “Poverty and Purification: The Politics of Gandhi’s Campaign for Prohibition,” Historian (2005), “Temperance Internationalism: Guy Hayler and the World Prohibition Federation,” Social History of Alcohol and Drugs (2006), "Why Some Black Lodges Prospered and Others Failed: The Good Templars and the True Reformers," Ethnic and Racial Studies (2013), "Worrying about Drink," Brewery History (2016)and several more recent articles in Brewery History, as well as entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals. Outside alcohol historical studies, he has written about African American fraternal lodges. He is a bibliographer for world history. He edited The Black Lodge in White America: "True Reformer" Browne and His Economic Strategy (Wright State UP, 1994); Frank J. Merli, The Alabama, British Neutrality and the American Civil War (Indiana UP, 2004); and Milestone Documents in World Religions (Schlager, 2011); The English Heritage (Forum, 1988).
ActivityActivity
345 followers345 followers
Create a post
Loaded 1 Comments post
good to read with coffee!
Show all comments
ExperienceExperience
Miami University emeritus · FreelanceMiami University emeritus · Freelance2009 - Present · 16 yrs 5 mos2009 to Present · 16 yrs 5 mosMiami University (Oxford, Ohio)Miami University (Oxford, Ohio)
researchresearch
Miami UniversityMiami University1969 - 2010 · 41 yrs1969 to 2010 · 41 yrsMiami University (Oxford, Ohio)Miami University (Oxford, Ohio)
British and world history
directed ten completed Ph.D. dissertationsBritish and world history directed ten completed Ph.D. dissertations
Indiana University Northwest (Gary)Indiana University Northwest (Gary)1966 - 1969 · 3 yrs1966 to 1969 · 3 yrs
British history
Western CivilizationBritish history Western Civilization
Assumption College (Worcester, Massachusetts)Assumption College (Worcester, Massachusetts)1963 - 1966 · 3 yrs1963 to 1966 · 3 yrsWorcester, MassachusettsWorcester, Massachusetts
British history
Western CivilizationBritish history Western Civilization
University of Notre DameUniversity of Notre DameJun 1965 - Aug 1965 · 3 mosJun 1965 to Aug 1965 · 3 mosNotre Dame, IndianaNotre Dame, Indiana
summer session history lecturer, European history.summer session history lecturer, European history.
EducationEducation
Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), European HistoryDoctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), European History1959 - 19631959 - 1963
Woodrow Wilson fellow
teaching assistant
dissertation fellow
wrote about the historiography of the English Civil WarWoodrow Wilson fellow teaching assistant dissertation fellow wrote about the historiography of the English Civil War
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), HistoryBachelor of Arts (B.A.), History1955 - 19591955 - 1959
Activities and societies: editor, newspaper
debate teamActivities and societies: editor, newspaper debate team
history majorhistory major
Show all 5 educations
SkillsSkills
Show all 25 skills
RecommendationsRecommendations
Show all pending
You haven't accepted a recommendation yetYou haven't accepted a recommendation yet
PublicationsPublications
ed., E. Lawrence Levy and Muscular Judaism, 1851-1932 (2014)ed., E. Lawrence Levy and Muscular Judaism, 1851-1932 (2014)
Edwin Mellen Press · Jan 1, 2014Edwin Mellen Press · Jan 1, 2014
Levy is best known as a “strongman” who won amateur weightlifting championships in both British and international competitions. He was a judge at the 1896 Olympics in Athens and helped organize the gymnastics section of the 1908 Olympics in London. Levy also was a headmaster of a predominantly Jewish school in Birmingham, edited a weekly newspaper for a brewers’ society, organized entertainments at the Midland Conservative Club, and wrote prolifically for newspapers on sport, theater, and music. Levy is best known as a “strongman” who won amateur weightlifting championships in both British and international competitions. He was a judge at the 1896 Olympics in Athens and helped organize the gymnastics section of the 1908 Olympics in London. Levy also was a headmaster of a predominantly Jewish school in Birmingham, edited a weekly newspaper for a brewers’ society, organized entertainments at the Midland Conservative Club, and wrote prolifically for newspapers on sport, theater, and music.
Other authorsOther authors
Alcohol & Drugs in North America: a Historical EncyclopediaAlcohol & Drugs in North America: a Historical Encyclopedia
ABC-CLIO · Jan 1, 2013ABC-CLIO · Jan 1, 2013
This two-volume encyclopedia provides accessibly written coverage on a wide range of topics, covering substances ranging from whiskey to peyote as well as related topics such as Mexican drug trafficking and societal effects caused by specific drugs. The entries also supply an excellent overview of the history of temperance movements in Canada and the United States; trends in alcohol consumption, its production, and its role in the economy; as well as alcohol's and drugs' roles in shaping national discourse, the creation of organizations for treatment and study, and legal responses.This two-volume encyclopedia provides accessibly written coverage on a wide range of topics, covering substances ranging from whiskey to peyote as well as related topics such as Mexican drug trafficking and societal effects caused by specific drugs. The entries also supply an excellent overview of the history of temperance movements in Canada and the United States; trends in alcohol consumption, its production, and its role in the economy; as well as alcohol's and drugs' roles in shaping national discourse, the creation of organizations for treatment and study, and legal responses.
Other authorsOther authors
Show all 3 publications
LanguagesLanguages
FrenchFrench
Limited working proficiencyLimited working proficiency
GermanGerman
Elementary proficiencyElementary proficiency
Show all 3 languages
OrganizationsOrganizations
Alcohol & Drugs History SocietyAlcohol & Drugs History Society
received service plaques in 2009 and 2015; helps edit "Daily Record" 2603:6010:E700:10EC:2D97:CC29:F:FE0A (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really just copy and paste a subject's LinkedIn page as a justification for keeping? That's...not how this works. nf utvol (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Doesn't seem to have the citation count or other criteria needed to pass WP:PROF, however he was a primary editor of "Alcohol and Temperance in Modern History: An International Encyclopedia" which was reviewed in the journals "Social History of Alcohol and Drugs" (here) and the "Canadian Bulletin of Medical History" which appears to give him the bare minimum for passing WP:NAUTHOR. nf utvol (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to the reviews identified by Nfutvol, I found and added to the article three reviews of his 1998 book Temperance Societies in Late Victorian and Edwardian England and two reviews of his 2020 book Temperance Societies in Late Victorian and Edwardian England. There's a pass of WP:AUTHOR here. Jahaza (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And two reviews for his 2022 book The Politics of Drink in England, from Gladstone to Lloyd George. Jahaza (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cactus City, California

[edit]
Cactus City, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. Seems to be just a rest stop. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Wilkinson-Smith

[edit]
Chris Wilkinson-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly promotional BLP filled with puffery. The only indication of notability is the article's assertion that the subject was appointed to a quasi-governmental office of "crown solicitor". The position is of so little notability that we don't have an article on it; and regardless, the cited source only states that the article's subject was briefly acting in the role and did not formally hold it. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope Center, California

[edit]
Antelope Center, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE, Nothing more than a post. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tucumcari High School

[edit]
Tucumcari High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being the only high school in a city does not make a school notable. Upon search, the subject does not seem to be notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Williams (cosmetologist)

[edit]
Crystal Williams (cosmetologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. Many of the references in the article do not seem to be independent of the subject, and upon search, it does not seem like this subject is notable. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite de Baugé

[edit]
Marguerite de Baugé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination: Notability questioned. Very little information in article besides that she owned a castle and married someone else who may be notable.ash (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Meditation Day

[edit]
World Meditation Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not seeing any reliable-source secondary coverage of this UN General Assembly-declared awareness day for a pass of WP:GNG. Like the sources in the article, the sources in the WP:BEFORE search are all unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA churnalism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This one is tricky. I found about a hundred different news articles in Indian and Nepalese newspapers and magazines, but WP:NEWSORGINDIA warns us to be careful to use them to establish notability, since they aren't reliable. In these case, maybe there are some of them which could be reliable, since they're reporting the primary source, but sorting them out could be troublesome.
However, I found a few reliable news articles, in Spanish: [25] [26] [27] and a couple of articles in English: [28] [29] -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add two other links which seem reliable enough: [30] [31]
Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources supplied by Itzcuauhtli11: Clarin, Noticias RCN, and Cadena are unbylined and read as churnalism. MIU is affiliated with one of the creators of World Meditation Day and thus of questionable independence. 17 Global Goals is a site whose mission is to promote UN activities, and Friends is a pro-transcendental meditation initiative. SBS Hindi seems to be the only truly secondary, independent, reliable coverage offered of this holiday. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not betting the independence of the sources I gave. It's not clear for me if Clarín engages in churnalism.
I'd like to add that The Indian Express WP:INDIANEXP is considered reliable and has two articles on the subject: [32] [33]. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Bat Cave

[edit]
Austin Bat Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be notable upon search - there are articles such as the Austin Chronicle, but they are not WP:SIGCOV so there's no reason to presume that the subject is notable. The current state of the article also only has one reference, which is their own website. Also slight WP:NPOV issues. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Texas. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, I have begun to add references to the article and fix the language. I am still finding more refs, but it is already a very different article than what it was before. StonyBrook babble 09:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This literacy organization meets GNG and NCORP by way of the following newspaper articles that are available via the Newspaper Archive & Newspapers.com (requires access): Daily Texan (9 Nov 2015) Nonprofit Austin Bat Cave teaches, publishes children's creative writing which is a front page newspaper feature article (two pages long, with photo); Brownsville Herald a half-page article (29 July 2019) with four photographs Expressive Project: Teaching writing is as important as reading; Lockhart Post Register (8 September 2022) Evening with the Authors a paragraph on the founder of Austin Bat Cave; The Paducah Sun (18 July 2019) Is teaching writing as important as teaching reading? feature article with three photos of Austin Bat Cave, later picked up by the The Saginaw News 23 August 2019) and circulated nationally; Austin American-Statesman (12 Jan 2017) Out - several paragraphs and a photo of the founder; Austin American-Statesman (16 April 2011) Tutors with Austin Bat Cave help students get their wings - feature article with photo on the front page of the "Life & Arts" section, continued on a second page as a half-page article with three more photos; and more. These sources (and others) clearly provide the required secondary Significant Coverage in multiple reliable sources that are fully independent of the organization over an extended period of time - for years. The coverage addresses the subject in-depth and directly. I agree with StonyBrook that the article may need cleaning up and improvements, however that is not a valid rationale for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul H Elovitz

[edit]
Paul H Elovitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. An article referenced entirely by Elovitz's own publications. Did reach associate professor level at Temple University; a long publication history, but Scopus shows limited impact (H-index=3), although that seems to be missing his pre-1996 work. Klbrain (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPONGE

[edit]
SPONGE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be a likely hoax or satirical fabrication. It lacks reliable sources and has no verifiable evidence that the organization ever existed. The cited references are weak, misleading, or irrelevant. This topic does not meet notability guidelines.

This article presents SPONGE as a real political pressure group, but the claim is unsupported by reliable sources and appears to be an instance of misinformation. The only verifiable mentions of “SPONGE” refer to its use as a racist acronym or gag — not an actual organization. The 1978 Lewiston Evening Journal article documents a high school prank, not group activity. The 1999 commentary by Earl Ofari Hutchinson refers to an alleged use of the term within a police department, but offers no evidence of an actual group. The only historical book cited mentions SPONGE briefly, without treating it as real or notable.

In effect, the Wikipedia article is the fourth appearance of SPONGE, not documenting a group, but continuing the pattern of SPONGE being used as a recurring racist gag. There is no substantiated continuity, structure, or notability. Instead, this article appears to be a case of citogenesis or hoax propagation. It does not meet the standards of verifiability or notability and should be deleted. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT sources even state it is fictitious. Delete per others reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - @InvisibleUser909, Chiswick Chap, Czarking0, and Dracophyllum: Could we pump the brakes on the claims of this being a hoax and exhortations to protect the page from recreation? A previous AFD resulted in the article being kept, based on the book source (which does not treat the group as "fictitious") [36], this book review which suggests the group is covered in detail in one of its subjects, and contemporary mentions in the magazine Jet [37][38]. Additionally, there are several contemporary articles about the group in the New York Times (ex. [39][40][41]) and a Google Books search reveals even more potential sources. I'm not certain any of that means the article should be kept, as a slang dictionary refers to the group as "more notional than real" and one of the NYT articles above states that the group "has no office or headquarters, no constitution or charter, no officers or recognized leaders, no regular meetings, no staff and no agreement on what constitutes membership," but it at least deserves a more detailed discussion than what has taken place so far. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SPONGE was definitely a racist in-joke, per:
    • Its name had long been an in- side joke among neighborhood whites and played off their belief that blacks were “sponging” off the government at their expense. – The Ungonverable City
    Evidence for SPONGE as an organisation comes mostly from a small (<100) group of white (mostly Italian-American) youths who adopted the name. They got in the News when they: "battled members of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) who were protesting the lack of opportunities for blacks at the World’s Fair."
    A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. Per one of the news articles:
    • Sponge the "organization" that jeered at Mayor Lindsay in East New York Thursday night and later staged an antiNegro demonstration that provoked a reply in gunshots, beer and soda bottles really is not an organization at all."
    It is even clear that each action is from the same group? The name was spread through many different circles and communities. SPONGE at most deserves a few sentences in an article on Integration or racism in the period in question. Dracophyllum 22:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A group of youths who took a racist in-joke as a name, had no real structure; only a "leader," is not notable. That has nothing to do with any notability criteria. Notability will depend on whether there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 07:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Salt - per above. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not salt and weak keep: Folks, just search the term in Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. There is a lot of coverage about the topic in reliable sources. I'm fine with deciding that the current article could deserve WP:TNT, but I'm really against salting here, since it's conceivable that someone would write a good article about it. MarioGom (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more or less where I'm at too; it doesn't make any sense to salt the page, which is obviously not a hoax, and even TNTing it seems like an overreaction when the issues with it could be solved by rewriting it or possibly merging it with an appropriate target (I couldn't find a page on the riots the group participated in, but East New York#Economic downturn is one option). Right now my bold vote is Keep per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, needs work seems somewhat notable, with coverage in secondary sources such as [42], [43]. Got contemporary news coverage as well, [44], [45]. I do think it might make sense to redirect/merge somewhere else, but I don't think that outright deletion makes sense, Eddie891 Talk Work 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion after consensus has trended from "get rid of it totally" to potentially salvageable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is notable and salvageable. Obviously not a hoax. It's short and bad but so are many articles and it's not so bad as to be TNT worthy. There are tons of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ per WP:CSK#1, withdrawn. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Psomiades

[edit]
Kathy Psomiades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found [46] [47] two reviews of her first book, and that same book has got quite a lot of citations for her field, but I don't think it's quite reaching the level of WP:NPROF, where we'd hope for multiple reviews of multiple books, or many highly cited works. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just after I posted this, I found [48], [49], [50] three reviews of her other book, and a couple more reviews of her first one. I will be withdrawing this, and reminding myself not to rely on JSTOR too much. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's a third review of her first book[51], fourth[52], fifth[53].
What the article describes as her "current project", was actually published in 2023 as Primitive Marriage[54] and reviewed[55][56][57][58] Jahaza (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above keep comment was posted using the reply function after the above withdrawal. I've preserved it here in refactored form.--Jahaza (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Julian Adyeri Omalla

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Julian Adyeri Omalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person is not notable businessperson; the awards are not notable either. I cannot find proper third party reliable of the subject references. Seems the journalists are not very interested in this topic. Norlk (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UN link looks "good" but when you click on it and read it gives an interview format coverage, not reliable and not suitable for BLP:
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/06/1093392
Julian Omalla, who is widely known as “Mama Cheers” after the popular juice brand “Cheers” that her company Delight Uganda produces, is now planning to expand with the construction of a new factory in the north of the country.
“When I launched my company, Delight Uganda Limited, in 1996, I didn’t know much about running a business. I started it from scratch, and had to overcome many challenges.
I remember walking for many kilometres, on bad roads, and working in my garden from morning to night. One of the low points came when my business partner ran off with all of the money I had raised to buy stock. All I had left was a wheelbarrow, to take fruit to market, and one red dress!
I couldn’t get any banks to finance my business, because I didn’t have any collateral, so raising funds to expand was an uphill task. Like most women in Uganda, I had to rely on savings and invest my profits back into the company.
This link https://unctad.org/news/prize-winning-ugandan-woman-entrepreneur-grows-juice-business-improves-community provides no significant coverage either, and neither this one https://observer.ug/business/julian-omalla-wins-un-award-for-inclusive-business-model/
Omalla thanked Enterprise Uganda and UNCTAD for the award, and pledged to continue working to support uplift rural women from poverty.
She said that she intends to reach at least one million women from the current 500,000, over the next 10 years. She also noted that Delight is in the process of installing a modern processing plant in the region so as to increase its capacity to be able to buy and process all the fruits produced by women farmers. Norlk (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...So is this a keep or delete, @Norlk ? Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bubble (DVD based games console)

[edit]
The Bubble (DVD based games console) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Very limited coverage provided. The article is mostly sourced by user-generated Marketplace product listings, which is far from a reliable source. The LocoLabs sources are primary references by the manufacturer. The Marketing Week source seems to be an affiliate announcement about Bandai's marketing campaign for the product. There just unfortunately isn't enough evidence of any mainstream coverage to suggest that this is a product notable enough to merit encyclopedic treatment. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a couple blogs out there, but nothing to satisfy WP:GNG. ~ A412 talk! 14:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I acknowledge I created this article in the talk page, albeit not using the template correctly. I don't understand why the deletion though? The product existed, that's not in dispute. Had I not stated I was involved in the latter stages, would there still be an objection? What is gained by hiding knowledge? I'm sure it will get deleted, but I'm not sure why? What facts are disputed? MrMarmite (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue here seems to be a lack of secondary coverage in reliable sources, which is required for most articles. See WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT for the relevant guidelines. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is this deemed reliable? https://www.mobygames.com/platform/bubble/
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/teletubbies-tweenies-noddy-and-all-your-favouritesin-a-bubble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij3glUQpxLg MrMarmite (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No for all three. MobyGames is considered a user-generated source, as its information is crowdsourced. Gamesindustry.biz can be reliable for original reporting, but in this case, this is clearly a press release and not original reporting (see WP:ORGIND on intellectual independence). YouTube is considered a self-published source (WP:RSPYT for more details). ~ A412 talk! 22:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator TzarN64 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons nominator and MimirIsSmart stated. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per A412. Sanemero the Robot Prince (not really, it's a Gloryhammer reference) 16:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackloaded

[edit]
Trackloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Fails NCORP or the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Trackloaded meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) through significant coverage in independent, reliable sources:
    • Mentioned in Pulse Nigeria, referencing its lyrics/media section
    • Cited by Legit.ng in entertainment industry commentary
    • Awarded "Best Entertainment News Media Platform" by MEA Markets in 2024
    • Recognized as "Best Entertainment & Media Platform – West Africa" at Innovation in Business Awards 2024
    • Reached 4.4 million listeners on Audiomack, indicating real-world cultural and public impact

The article is neutrally written and sourced to meet the notability criteria under both GNG and NCORP for media-related topics. It documents a notable Nigerian digital platform with verified third-party recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oloyede2003 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

[edit]
Prince Christoph of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The significance of the person is not shown. Only genealogical information and the cause of his death are given. – RobertVikman 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Prince Alfonso of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (his father) per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came here expecting this to be an easy delete !vote on a non-notable minor noble. However, a web search for "christoph zu hohenlohe", one version of his German name, turns up a bunch of significant coverage: [59][60][61], most of it about his death but some from long afterwards (that last link is from 2020). I'm gonna do a deeper dive for sourcing, but I'm leaving this here for now. Toadspike [Talk] 13:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is English-language sigcov on his death the Independent article already cited in the article [62], and French/German coverage in "L'étrange mort d' un noble lausannois", L'Illustré, 16.08.2006 by Arnaud Bédat; "Prinzessin Ira von Fürstenberg «Man hat meinen Sohn umgebracht»", Glückspost, 17.08.2006, by Marco Hirt and Roswitha vom Bruck;"Ende eines Genfer Jetset-Prinzen", Tages-Anzeiger, 11.08.2006, by Bernhard Hülsebusch. There is also an article over 1000 words long in the Sonntagsblick of 20.08.2006, titled "Keine Maiglöckchen im Knast", by Helmut-Maria Glogger.
    Good search terms include "Christoph von Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz von Hohenlohe", "Christoph zu Hohenlohe", "Christoph Prinz zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg" (which appears to be his full and correct title), and "Christoph Vittorio Umberto" (his full first names). I see some articles from the time saying that his death was first reported in the Italian press, which I do not have great access too – for instance, my sources mention his brother and mother speaking to the Corriere della Sera, but I cannot find the original coverage in that paper. (The article current links to an English translation of a Corriere article, but this doesn't quote Ira, so clearly there was more.)
    I don't think BLP1E or BIO1E preclude an article here, but in case that comes up I've also found some indications that he received significant coverage before his death. He is mentioned repeatedly in articles about his mother, Ira von Fürstenberg (a very underdeveloped article – she seems to have been quite famous). In a 1978 interview of Ira in the Schweizer Illustrierte, Christoph is mentioned several times, not least when the interviewer asks "Christoph hat anscheinend, wie man in den Zeitungen lesen kann, einen Riesenerfolg bei Frauen." ("Christoph clearly has, as one can read in the newspapers, great success with women.") – so he was clearly being covered elsewhere, too. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources you specified contain information about him. But the information specified there does not give him significance according to any of Wikipedia's criteria of significance.
    When some aristocrat or any other famous person dies, they write about him in the news.
    But neither the sources nor the article show significance according to which the article could be saved. RobertVikman (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's coverage of his activities as a socialite and of his bizarre death. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not provide anything other than the cause of death and genealogy. What significance criterion does this article meet? RobertVikman (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One Star in Sight

[edit]
One Star in Sight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Multiple citations failed verification. About all that seems to be passing verification are primary texts and biographies written by Thelema adherents. Article is something of a coatrack, more concerned with A∴A∴ and Great Work (Thelema) than with the actual topic of discussion. This article should be deleted with the notable material being merged, after verification of citations actually saying what they're citing, to those two articles. Simonm223 (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based on the sources, both ones included and not included here, it is notable for both WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. The primary Crowley sources are an issue as is the infamous Eye in the Triangle & Grant, but the other sources are reliable and not from believers, and there are more than that. Crowley has simply had a lot written about him, and an individual text is a discrete enough topic that it can have a defined scope. The coattrack issue is true but not the point of WP:TNT because it canjust be trimmed. I would say keep and just trim the stuff that is less about the text/puffery. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You did notice the part where, before starting this AfD I found multiple citations that failed verification, yeah? A citation being in the article is not an indication the citation even mentions the subject. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more feedback needed, relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KUBE (Oregon)

[edit]
KUBE (Oregon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG and entirely relies on a single primary source. Another article of the same defunct radio station exist WMIC (1590 AM), WOSL (Florida). I think they should be deleted or merged as a list of defunct radio stations in America. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's 5 sentences, haha. Anyway, it looks like oregonnews.uoregon.edu (free!) is also missing those years of the East Oregonian but it might have other papers that newspapers.com doesn't have. Again, lacking sources is not a deletion criterion. And WP:BEFORE is a good guideline, especially section D. I'm not going to go to a whole lot more effort to flesh this article out but I will note that one of the problems with media sources are they often aren't covered in other media sources. Valfontis (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak draftify: most of the creator's other half-baked recent creations of this type, also solely sourced to that one dissertation, have been shipped to draftspace/AfC; this one at least has had more of a rescue attempt by others, even if it isn't enough for now. I'm thus reluctant to outright call for deletion at this time (but nor do I completely oppose it, as more minimally-sourced permastubs in this topic area is what Wikipedia does not need — we have too many lingering remnants of long-since-rejected looser inclusion standards as it is). I do outright oppose redirecting to the list of radio stations in Oregon#Defunct at this time; it is not currently listed there and thus would be a surprise. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: better to relist to get more feedback (draftify, redirect, delete?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Street

[edit]
Anton Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of several very tiny side-street connecting two notable roads in Hong Kong. I have searched for WP:SIGCOV in English and Chinese and have not been able to do more than verify that it exists. The Chinese version of this article doesn't contain any further sources to help. I think we could mention it Queen's Road, Hong Kong#Queen's Road East but from what I can find there isn't a lot to add except that it's one of multiple small alley ways connecting two major roads. Zzz plant (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It is just a minor street. This source mentions that in 1917 Tsui In Lane was widened and renamed Anton Street. This source states that it is named after Charles Edward Anton, Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co. Other sources give it passing mentions. One approach would be to redirect it to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, then expand the entry in the list of intersections in that article as
    • (N) > junction with {{anchor|Anton Street}} '''Anton Street''', a short road leading north to [[Hennessy Road]]. Created in 1917 by widening Tsui In Lane.<ref...>... Named after [[Charles Edward Anton]], Director of Jardine, Matheson & Co.<ref....>
That way the gazetteer-type information would be preserved. The other minor streets along Queen's Road East could be treated the same way. Probably less effort to boldly merge them into Queen's Road East than to put them through AfD. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems a good idea, but I think it would look a little undue weighty in that big road article unless all of the intersections were extended beyond a line summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All the side roads should be done, including notable ones that retain their own article and ones that turn into redirects. I am not sure I have the energy to do it. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to merge to Queen's Road East#Anton Street, since the purpose is to preserve gazeteer-type information, and Queen's Road East is the natural gazeteer parent. I have rearranged Queen's Road East a bit and added an anchor for Anton Street. I am not sure that the table format is ideal for a phone though. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 15:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: better to relist to get more feedback
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahishti Zewar

[edit]
Bahishti Zewar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no doubt that the subject is notable as a book. However, the authorship of the book is highly disputed, and even the content variations are debatable. This issue has been discussed by Ahlehaqmedia, a scholarly website. In its current form, the article would need to be entirely rewritten based on reliable sources. Given the present structure and sourcing, it is not suitable as a standalone article. I propose redirecting it to the article on Ashraf Ali Thanwi.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest L. Cu

[edit]
Ernest L. Cu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is too promotional, with no independent reliable references. I found only company media references, several interviews and brief mentions (so called WP Routine, WP Trades). Norlk (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay

[edit]
InstaPay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The app is not notable by its own, and it does not have enough reliable third party sources with journalistic significant not just press-released coverage. All the sources within the page and the ones I managed to find BEFORE are only event-based - Egypt's central bank launched... Norlk (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InstaPay is a nationally significant app in Egypt, launched under the Egyptian Central Bank's strategy for digital payments. It is widely adopted and integrated into government and private banking systems. many sources talked about it such as her bankygate.com and enterprise.news and ahram.org.eg Mohamed Ouda (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


2204355

[edit]
2204355 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Limited sources available (Mediate, Time, Salon.com, Daily Mail based on my searching) and only coverage for about a week - no sustained coverage. Don't think it meets GNG. Upjav (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clear lack of WP:SIGCOV, no sources covering this past 2010. And even the TIME source doesn't have any detail past "When you search that this shows up" ApexParagon (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Kyoushitsu

[edit]
Sports Kyoushitsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Other language wiki page has no sources that support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radi Ibrahim Nuhu

[edit]
Radi Ibrahim Nuhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain specific defined inclusion criteria supported by reliable source coverage about them and their work -- that is, you don't make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to Amazon or Barnes & Noble as proof that they exist, you make a writer notable enough for Wikipedia by referencing his books to media coverage about them (analytical reviews by professional literary critics, journalist-written news articles about him, verification of winning notable literary awards, etc.) as proof that they garnered independent third-party attention.
But this is referenced entirely to either online bookstores or the subject's own self-published social networking presence, with not a whit of WP:GNG-building reliable source coverage shown at all.
It also warrants note that this has already been move-warred over: it started out in draftspace, then got moved into mainspace by its own creator without an WP:AFC review, then got redraftspaced by an experienced editor on the grounds of being inadequate, before being moved back into mainspace by its creator a second time without significant improvement or review.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expressions of dominance

[edit]
Expressions of dominance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTESSAY. LR.127 (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Glory School and College

[edit]
Morning Glory School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three thus it should be deleted unless new in-depth sources are added that establish both WP:SIGCOV and WP:Three. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High School Republican National Federation

[edit]
High School Republican National Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be notable as a standalone article. Coverage is limited to either interviews with individuals connected to the subject (e.g their chairperson) or passing mentions about the subject, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable, secondary coverage about the subject to warrant a article. Article edit history also shows a potential WP:COI. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary championships in All Elite Wrestling

[edit]
Secondary championships in All Elite Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly fancraft content with the relevant parts already at List of current champions in All Elite Wrestling and rest of the championship articles. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seniorly.com

[edit]
Seniorly.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about a company, twice moved to draft by other editors but then returned to mainspace by the article creator. The given sources are start-up coverage about the firm's aspirations and announcement-based coverage which falls under WP:CORPTRIV. Searches find more pieces by the company co-founder (e.g. [63]) and alumni profiles ([64]) but there does not appear to be sufficient coverage about the company to demonstrate that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pineapple emoji

[edit]
Pineapple emoji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see any Sigcov per BEFORE, only the ref #6 source and the weak source like Bustle, thus failing notability. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Software. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Could perhaps be a brief mention in an emoji article, but most of what i find is trivia [65] or random mentions online. I don't see enough for a full article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the ref #6, isn't it a full article? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and what is there (including ref 6) can be incorporated into other articles, eg ref 6 is more about the symbolism of pineapples and could be added to the article on pineapple. --hroest 13:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as major author of the article: Source analysis has not been properly conducted. The comment that Bustle is "weak" is not substantiated by why this would be so. The article is equivalent of around 16 Column inches devoted to this subject alone. There was not any attempt to address dictionary.com which is a solid source, used in hundreds of articles. Even the nom seems to admit that source #6, at Jane Austen Society of North America, is a full article about this subject, and the presence of "emoji" in the article title tells us that it is not about the fruit, but the symbol. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dictionary as a source is not a secondary and would not count to notability. Ref #6 is mixed since it also talked about the pineapple itself, not only the emoji. Bustle is weak when you check that source since the article is mentioning all the fruits, not only pineapple emoji (You really thought because of the headline title). When I checked the body of the article, it only says about pineapple emoji is "especially when you can post a bunch of pineapple emojis to your Snapchat story to get people scratching their heads instead." Yeah, Bustle and ref#6 is not enough, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Berwal

[edit]
Amit Berwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. A search for sources largely turned up passing mentions which only note his position as the bodyguard unit commandant, without providing any WP:SIGCOV about him. At most we have this Indian Express piece on the unit in which Berwal provides details on the unit - but again, no sigcov about the person himself. JavaHurricane 11:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm just going to speedy draftify this. Decent chance it comes back to AFD but very obviously an incomplete start that should go through AFC if/when ready. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 13:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AAPA and Black Power

[edit]
AAPA and Black Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant with Asian American Political Alliance and Black power movement. Gjs238 (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Raina railway station

[edit]
Raina railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find anything about this railway station in Pakistan. I did find an article about a railway station that happens to be called "Raina", but it is located in West Bengal (India), not Pakistan.

And I'm not entirely sure if that article is even reliable.

(Edit: another article about the Indian railway station, still nothing for the Pakistan one though) ApexParagon (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Night Stream

[edit]
Night Stream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not have significant independent coverage per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Nunn (artist)

[edit]
James Nunn (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nunn appears to be a successful professional in his field of illustration, but after a fair bit of looking I can't turn up much proper, independent sigcov. None of his three illustrated books pass a strict WP:NBOOK, though the Corbyn Colouring Book got a good number of brief mentions. I found a non-independent interview, but no proper profiles. I don't see WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the coverage of the Corbyn Colouring Book qualifies this article's subject under WP:SIGCOV. CompleteAnonymity (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Per WP:RSP No passing mention ✘ No
No No No primary source ✘ No
No No No churnalism ✘ No
No No Per WP:RSP No ✘ No
No No No primary source ✘ No
Yes Yes No WorldCat listing proves the coloring book exists only ✘ No
Yes Yes No listicle ✘ No
To build a new Jezrusalem: an historical institutionalist analysis of the origins of the Corbyn era in the Labour party No random article - no mention of James Nunn ✘ No
Atticus: Sorry, Lady Grantham, but you are splitting heirs No passing mention ✘ No
No Per WP:RSP Yes promotional review ✘ No
No listicle ✘ No
No No No publication notice in Bookseller magazine ✘ No
A selection of 2017 sporting reads by Mark Perryman for the post-festive recovery period No listicle ✘ No
No No No interview in the Art Buyer with link to sales area ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 09:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have also found and added more sources, including more reviews of The Jeremy Corbyn Colouring Book and reviews of other books he illustrated. SunloungerFrog has now also found an award for another title. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J-P Conte

[edit]
J-P Conte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely promotional and lacking WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS Amigao (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on it with you and make sure it's impartial...guy has some...interesting coverage and I think in the public interest. Lmk I want to get into editing and this looks cool. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/genstar-s-conte-to-back-takeover-of-lyon-football-teamhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12610833/Genstar-chairman-Jean-Pierre-Conte-sues-interior-designer-ex-girlfriend-Hillary-Thomas-defamation-claimed-attacked-Aspen-home-2022.html Socialio86 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#J-P Conte - MediaKyle (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Socialio86 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. PhilKnight (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And more keep popping up. smh. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great questions as Theroadislong is a reputable editor so pinging them here. I still have no opinion on notability as I have been slowly throwing out the unreliable sources and WP:REFBOMB trying to narrow down the significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:AFC we are minded to accept drafts if there is more than a 50% chance of them surviving an WP:AFD that is all. Theroadislong (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if we take this into consideration he may just make it. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I currently see sources like this, this and this that may as well contribute to notability. The sources in the article mostly do not contribute to notability standards. I will reconsider later if evidence lead to the subject not meeting notability standards. ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed quite a few sources but I am done until the AfD plays out. I found a lot of FAKEREFs and user-generated references (likely paid for based on the COIN thread). The Pionline source is churnalism from the Bloomberg article and CEO World is unreliable (user generated so would be similar to WP:FORBESCON. However, I did find some better sources I will list below. Compiling them now. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Sources related to an assault. A lot of churnalism but here are the most reliable - Fortune, Bloomberg, Aspen Daily News (this source would be one for WP:BALANCE should anyone find the incident inclusion worthy).
2. Bloomberg (about the investment in the Lyon Football Team) - Not too in-depth on him but provides context of his investment activities.
Unfortunately, I do not find anything else that would be considered significant coverage. So, if he is notable for the assault accusation, then its a clear Keep. If not, the bio fails WP:GNG. I also see that the campaign noted in COIN still continues so there are a lot of sources out there which are masquerading as reliable when in fact they are paid for or user-generated content (or both).--CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HilssaMansen19:, welcome back to Wikipedia. I am wondering if you looked at these sources or just pasted what came up in a Google Search. The reason I ask is because the assault accusation were addressed in the above sources assessment already and some you posted include churnalism of the topic. Are you saying he is notable for the assault accusation? You also posted this which has NOTHING to do with him (in fact, it came up in Google Search because his name appears in the sidebar for a different article on that site) and this (not only is this a press release, but it is a regurgitation of a press release and clearly marked as such). Never has a press release been used to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks man, no, I read the articles first and if they have relation to the subject with any passable mention including their work, profile or any related thing, I copy paste. Honestly, I might have missed one or two because there were many and copy tab only allows 5 in my keyboard, some are deleted when I realise it's over five and thus, I paste them in notes first. Thank you for pointing that one out. As for the other one, it mentioned subject's current posts and relation with other institutions, that's why I considered it a passable mention where it can be used to verify subject's posts/relations HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I apologize but I do not understand your response. The analysis of the sources you presented is not correct as at least one is a press release, one is a dead link, etc. Can you go back through them and either point out the ones that are considered significant coverage or re-visit your vote based on an actual WP:BEFORE?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Minimal WP:SIGCOV that doesn't involve a WP:BLPCRIME violation . Majority of his sources currently on his page appear to be profiles hosted by his company's sites or are related to Philanthropy . Unless we're debating the notability as a philanthropist, I think he needs more SIGCOV related to his career activities without mention to an allegation of assault & his countersuit of defamation . If convicted of assault, this would change things . In addition to this, I don't see his Wiki page being more than a CV unless better press appears.. That all being said he's just not notable and the page that is here sucks for wiki .--BigManBiggerFrog (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus either way yet – User:CNMall41, have you decided which side you land on?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging @Pigsonthewing – now that the AfC reviewer has replied, would you like to suggest an outcome? Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources used now are either primary or only mentions. I can find mentions of a "crime" [82], [83] that doesn't seem to meet criminal notability either. I don't see enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - @Toadspike: thanks for the ping as I forgot all about this. I find it strange to even consider notability based on an assault accusation. If you take that away, there is very little coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Currie

[edit]
Steve Currie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG in that his notability is related primarily to membership in T Rex. References cited mention him only in passing and primarily in that connection. Should be a redirect to the band article, and lacks sufficient notability to warrant a standalone article. Geoff | Who, me? 12:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Per nom the sources in the article only cover currie in regards to his membership in the band or when its about his connection to Marc Bolan Scooby453w (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to T. Rex (band). This article may have been created because other non-Bolan members of T. Rex also have their own articles, but the others have more activities of note outside the band. Currie was a longtime member during the band's most massive success, but I must agree with the nominator and previous voter on how he has little outside of the band with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Untrue to say that the sources are mere mentions in passing - although all four are from Bolan/T.Rex books, they nonetheless substantially record Currie's background and career prior to joining the band. They are not quick one liners by any means. They are adequate (if similar in content to each other) and there are other examples like them e.g. The Official Marc Bolan Story by George Tremlett. (Futura 1975) or Marc Bolan:The Legendary Years by John & Shan Bramley (Gryphon 1997) Romomusicfan (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Source one is one sentence about currie having died due to tragic circumstances source 2 is a book about marc bolan and while it says it also covers the bios of other members currie isnt listed as one of them source 3 is nother book about bolan where currie has a minor mention in it (and isnt even listed in the synopsis while other members are) to sum it all about he quite literally is not mentioned in any source that's not about the band or bolan Scooby453w (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And sources 4&5? Or the above proposed 6&7?
    Granted Sources 2-5 (potentially 2-7 if Tremlett and Bramleys are added on) are all from texts about T.Rex or Bolan but they nonetheless are each of them a substantial passage (from a paragraph to a half page) detailing Currie's background and pre-Bolan career.Romomusicfan (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i might change my vote but Ill admit im still on the fence a little though Scooby453w (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we please get an analysis of Romomusicfan's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scooby453w, @Doomsdayer520, @Glane23, do you find Romomusicfan's argument or sources persuasive? @Bearian, I mean no offense, but I can't tell from your !vote if you actually looked at the sources here – could you please clarify why you think a redirect is fine? Toadspike [Talk] 09:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok by me. No offense taken. Bearian (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded that a separate article is warranted per WP:BAND. I'm still in favour of a redirect absent a biographical profile such as a book focused solely on Currie's work apart from and with T Rex, as everything published that mentions him springs primarily from and about his work with T Rex. Geoff | Who, me? 12:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will stick with my vote to redirect. It is true that the cited books have some additional info on Currie's early life, but that info is not particularly notable in its own right and there is not enough significant coverage of his non-T.Rex acitivites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think people can check out some of the sources themselves and make their own decision rather than needing to find my argument persuasive. I do feel it was incorrect to characterise them as "mention him only in passing " - they are more substantial than that. Romomusicfan (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Neiszner

[edit]
Chris Neiszner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for hockey players. The leagues he played in, the American Hockey League and the ECHL, are specifically listed in WP:NHOCKEY as conferring notability only if the player "Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top-10 career scorer, first-team all-star)" -- but there's no claim being made here that he ever achieved any such thing in either league, and he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG either as the article is referenced entirely to content self-published by the teams he has played or worked for rather than any evidence of independent coverage in third-party media sources.
The article has, additionally, spent 18 full months with WP:BLP-violating nonsense like "He is currently an ambulance driver in Alberta. He once smiled, but really didn't like it. Chris also had the pleasure of providing the Rebels staff with water in their mouths." in it until I found and poleaxed it just now, which isn't a deletion rationale in and of itself but does speak to how many responsible editors have actually seen the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without much more and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Versions of the above links that will open through Wikipedia Library: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage in the home market of the team he played for isn't sufficient in and of itself to give a minor-league hockey player a GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY. We'd have to see nationalizing coverage, not just the Red Deer Advocate alone. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
coverage isn't sufficient ... [for a] GNG-based exemption from WP:NHOCKEY – ?? NHOCKEY is an inclusionary criterion, not an exlusionary one (and a broken one at that -- if you meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG; if you do not meet NHOCKEY, you may be notable if you pass GNG). The only thing that matters is whether he meets GNG, and national coverage is not necessary for that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a distinction between "inclusionary" and "exclusionary" SNGs. GNG does not just count up the number of media hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary number, without considering the context in which the media hits exist — as I've said more than once, if GNG just concerned itself with the number of sources a person had, and didn't care about whether the context of what the person was getting covered for was actually of any broad or sustained public interest or not, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's former neighbour who once got a blip of media coverage for finding a pig in her front yard. (Hell, if all GNG cared about was the number of media hits that could be found, and didn't measure for whether the context of what those hits existed for passed any notability criteria or not, then I would even be able to claim that I qualified for an article.) So media coverage doesn't just have to hit some arbitrary number of clippings, and also has to verify passage of one or more notability criteria. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sport-specific sub criteria is just leftover stuff from before WP:NSPORTS2022 that wasn't participation based (all of the participation criteria was removed). None of the individual sport guidelines have been updated with replacement criteria so we're pretty much just left with skeletonized guidelines that offer unhelpful advice like likely to be notable if they've been inducted into the hall of fame. There's isn't even any guidance currently on football, gridiron football, or baseball. In regards to NHOCKEY, the only NHL guidance mentions first-round draft picks, which is obviously too strict given all of the blue links at 2017 NHL entry draft (and there's never been an overabundance of hockey players anyway). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Right now, it looks like Wayne Gretzky fails NHOCKEY. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He does fail NHOCKEY. I suggest an AfD. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV does not exclude local coverage, and makes no mention of national coverage. Flibirigit (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage isn't excluded from usability, and I never said it was. But local coverage is not necessarily enough to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from normal inclusion criteria all by itself — unelected candidates are not exempted from NPOL just because they can show a handful of local campaign coverage in the local media of the area where they were running without any evidence of broader significance, actors who don't otherwise pass NACTOR's achievement-based criteria are not exempted from them just because they can show a handful of "local aspiring actor gets first bit part in movie" coverage in their hometown media without any evidence of broader significance, high school and junior league athletes are not exempted from the inclusion criteria for their sport just because they can show a handful of hometown local coverage without any evidence of broader significance, local bands are not exempted from having to pass WP:NMUSIC just because they got a few hits of "local band plays local pub" in their local newspaper without any evidence of broader significance, and on and so forth.
If a person is properly established as passing an SNG on an actual inclusion criterion, then we genuinely don't care whether their sourcing is "local" or "national" — but if a person's coverage isn't establishing passage of any specific inclusion criteria, and instead you're trying to argue that they get over GNG purely on the number of media hits that exist in and of itself, then a local vs. national coverage test does come into play, because lots of people can show some evidence of local coverage in contexts that don't pass encyclopedic standards of permanent international significance. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT may apply here. Flibirigit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the only coverage were a couple of articles from Neiszer's home town of Craik, Saskatchewan stating that he made it to a WHL team, I'd probably agree that he does not meet GNG. But he has much more extensive coverage from Red Deer, Alberta, which is not his home town (or even his home province) plus significant coverage from Las Vegas, Nevada, which is not even his home country. That's not to mention a lot of insignificant coverage in other newspapers in other ciites. So he actually has not only national coverage, but international coverage. Rlendog (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Red Deer Advocate is a perfectly acceptable source for demonstrating significant coverage for notability, which has no "national coverage" requirement, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal provides an additional source of significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment while not really an international outlet, there are at least 6 articles from the Red Deer Advocate here which would count towards notability. However, my problem is that they do not seem to be very in-depth which makes me wonder whether there is enough material to write an interesting article that goes beyond the Hockey stats. --hroest 19:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources seem quite limited and I don't think it passes WP:BASIC. Ramos1990 (talk) 23:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG with multiple sources of SIGCOV listed above. NSPORT doesn't have any reasonable sport-specific guidance on stuff anymore since WP:NSPORTS2022 so this is all we have to go on. Just following the rules. Can't have it both ways. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer This is due for close or relist today, but I don't see any source review. Could we get a relist to do that properly. My first observation is that 6 of the 7 sources come from the same newspaper, and so these would only count as a single source for purposes of GNG. The links have ot been set up through the Wikipedia library so I will need to do a bit of work to review them, but that is at most one source. The other, the Las Vegas Review, is a report on their return, but is primarily an interview, so the biographical information is not independent, and is primary. I think this needs more work. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Source review - Thanks for the relist. I have now looked at the six sources above, and here is my assessment (in conjunction with my earlier comment about the Las Vegas Review source).
    The following are all from the Red Deer Advocate, a local paper for Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. They are mostly from one staff correspondent. One is from an alternate staff correspondent. The page subject is only associated with the Red Deer Rebels. The Red Deer Advocate is owned by Black Press, but coverage of a player on the local team in a local paper is clearly WP:ROUTINE or of questionable independence. To be notable, the player must surely be noticeable beyond the local paper.
  • 1 (Meacham, 2001) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Question?
  • 2 - Not SIGCOV. Red XN
  • 3 (Meacham, 2005) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Additionally information appears to be obtained via interview, and aspects of this are primary reporting. Question?
  • 4 (Meacham, 2010) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Question?
  • 5 (Rode, 2005) This appears to be a write up of an interview, so the biographical information is not independent. Red XN
  • 6 (Meacham, 2003) Looks like SIGCOV, and secondary. As above, questionable independence. Question?
The six sources count together. While some are excluded, there is SIGCOV here in this local paper about the local team. But can they be used for notability? Certainly not on their own. They provide some useable biographical information, but they do not indicate notability. GNG requires multiple sources in any case. If we had national coverage at this level, we would keep, based on the coverage, but as things stand, if this is all we have, we are not yet at GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very much disagree with the source review above. The Review-Journal is an ~800 word story on him that is not solely an interview. Sirfurboy seems to be stating that any story that has any quotes or such is automatically non-independent, but that is clearly incorrect and including quotes from closely related people is a feature of almost all good sports reporting. Review-Journal is SIGCOV source 1. Then we've got an avalanche of coverage from the Advocate. "Questionable independence"? No, the paper is not owned by the team or anything like that. Being local does not mean non-independent! And there is no requirement that a subject receives national coverage. The Review-Journal has SIGCOV and then the Advocate has SIGCOV. That's multiple sources with SIGCOV, and that meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nearly everything in the Review is indeed from an interview. I missed that 89 words of direct quotation actually come from Glen Gulutzan, his coach, saying:

    Early on he's had some offensive success, but what we can count on him for is the same game every night. That's why he's good for our younger guys. His game doesn't fluctuate every day. It's the same every day.

    "He kills penalties, plays in front of the net on the power play and on 5-on-5 he's defensively responsible. We know every night we can rely on him in tough situations. He's just a well-rounded player, and that's how he has to be to get to the next level.

    Other than that, the only material that is not directly from the subject is that he spent last season in France (signed because of his agent), his offense has improved, he scored 23 points in 26 games, and he is reunited with Justin Taylor. This is primarily an interview with a returning player. Where is he returning to? Las Vegas. And this is the Las Vegas Review. What is not interview is news reporting, city wide but local. Again, if we had any national coverage it would be different, but coverage of who is rejoining a local team is routine, match reporting is primary and interview content is not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's 260 words of coverage of Neiszner that is not from quotes – that's SIGCOV. There is no requirement that the coverage be non-local. Whether you personally judge it to be "routine" because its of a "returning player" is irrelevant. The only thing that matters, aside from it being reliable and independent (which it is), is whether it is in-depth coverage (SIGCOV), which it is. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're discounting "local" coverage and entire sources because they have some quote material (which is standard sports journalism), then there are a decent amount of NHL players that wouldn't even pass GNG. Would an article on a Philadelphia Flyers player in The Philadelphia Inquirer not count since it's "local"? Only All-Star caliber players and those who have played for 10+ years will have national SIGCOV. I'm not going to "die on the hill" (for lack of a better phrase) for this minor leaguer but I would for an NHL player. Here is an example of a Q&A type interview that wouldn't count towards notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnampalli

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Krishnampalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability. Could find no significant coverage or sources to establish notability and certainly not to class it as either populous or legally recognised under Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Coldupnorth (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. Article already merged into 2025 India–Pakistan strikes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pakistani strikes in Kashmir

[edit]
2025 Pakistani strikes in Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to be largely duplicative of the existing 2025 India–Pakistan strikes page. There is no need to maintain a separate article for what is essentially connected to the same incident. Chronos.Zx (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we running out of space on Wikipedia? 81.26.246.123 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There is no need to confuse readers. These article portrays the same thing and this article particularly is the subset of 2025 India–Pakistan strikes page. Aviator Jr (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge/Deletion. Atleast until there is SUBSTANTIAL Pakistani strikes as to warrant a seperate article. 45.248.50.50 (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per above, just merge them. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Veritasphere (talk) 11:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Blockchain LLC

[edit]
Blockchain LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While company made bold claims at the height of crypto hype and was covered as such, plans fell through. There is no significant coverage of the current focus (gaming reputation). -- Luk talk 08:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Darling (Civil War nurse)

[edit]
Mary Darling (Civil War nurse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could hardly find an independent reliable source confirming that she existed. The primary source for this article is the subject's own account of their service. Otherwise, does not seem to meet GNG. There is coverage in Hall 2006, but it is confined to one page; I can't see what it is. Either way it's not enough for a stand-alone page. Without secondary analysis of Darling, we can't build an article here. Eddie891 Talk Work 08:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep sorry but "I could not see the source" isnt really a good enough reason to delete, there seems to be at least one secondary source on her. --hroest 12:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we would need multiple to establish notability, @Hannes Röst. Even if that book has sigcov, which is not clear, I found no other sources offering more. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was able to access the Hall book — the extent of the coverage is the following text in the "Honor Roll of Civil War Service" on p.233:
    DARLING, Mrs. Mary E. Became a regimental nurse in her husband's Missouri Home Guard unit that was mustered into U.S. service in December 1861. She traveled with the regiment and cared for soldiers in tents and field hospitals and in the division hospital near the Shiloh battleground.
I would not consider that SIGCOV. The citation for that entry in Hall 2006 is also the same primary source published in Darling 2002 that is cited in our article, so there's no indication of additional secondary sources there. I'll come back to this once I've done a proper search for other sources, but I agree that I don't see a GNG pass based on the current two sources. MCE89 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no coverage that indicates that Mary Darling was any more notable than the tens of thousands of other women who had similar roles during the war. The article has also been claiming since creation that she was a Confederate nurse; both the article content and the qutoe from the Hall book make it clear that she was a nurse for a Union unit. I suspect this is probably from a confusion between the Union Missouri Home Guard and the Confederate Missouri State Guard. Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Lobenthal

[edit]
Joel Lobenthal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable art historian/author. WP:ROTM 'cultural' critic. No RS establish notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 08:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Harrison-Jones

[edit]
Quinn Harrison-Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable New Zealand rugby player. Subject plays below provincial level. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORT. Cabrils (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Cheever

[edit]
Ross Cheever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hi there. I came across this article via Special:Random and am quite alarmed by the fact it has (almost) no references. At first, I presumed it was just because of poor referencing and a classic case of deletion is not cleanup, but after scouring the internet I cannot find any significant coverage of him anywhere; all sources are either about his brother Eddie Cheever (who is reasonably notable), or are just entries in various racing driver sites (which is what the two refs are). I accidentally proposed deletion rather than sending to AfD so I'll fix that in a second. Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC) JacobTheRox (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Finding online SIGCOV of late 80s/early 90s drivers is often very difficult – this article needs more references – but as a multi race winner and title contender in Japanese F3000 (the pinnacle of single-seater racing in Asia, quite lucrative at the time) Ross' own notability shouldn't be in question. MSport1005 (talk) 10:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per MSport1005's rationale. Finding web articles pre-early 2000s about motorsport, especially Japanese F3000 is really hard but to say that all sources are either entries or about his brother Eddie is a complete lie. [84], [85] are just two examples of sources I found, but I'd also argue that a 2-time grand prix winner and a Japanese F3 champion shouldn't even be nominated for deletion. [86],[87], [88].
Road Atlanta Turn 5 (Talk) 11:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Ambati

[edit]
Arjun Ambati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article should be kept as Arjun Ambati is a notable figure in the Telugu film industry. He has a significant filmography, with key roles in well-known projects, and his work has been covered by various media outlets. Additionally, he has a Google Knowledge Panel, which is an indicator of recognition and notability in the public domain.
I am working on adding more reliable sources, including interviews and articles from established media, to strengthen the article. His contributions to the industry further demonstrate his standing and relevance.
Thank you for considering my input. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Google knowledge panel does not mean anything in terms of notability at Wikipedia. --bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is no coverage at all of him in independent sources, much less any significant coverage. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. I would like to gently highlight that Arjun Ambati has been covered by independent and reliable sources such as The Times of India, Eenadu, Sakshi, and Andhra Jyothy. His work in Telugu television and cinema has also been featured on platforms like Gemini TV and Telugu Filmnagar. While I understand that a Google Knowledge Panel alone doesn't establish notability, it does suggest public interest and recognition. I’m continuing to improve the article by adding more reliable sources.
    Thanks again for your time and consideration. Kanthrajmys (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Honoré

[edit]
Arnaud Honoré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find WP:GNG-passing coverage. Doesn't seem to have played in any top league in France, made four appearances in Cypriot First Division so look maybe more into Cypriot sources if I missed something. Notable to say I made this article myself. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 West Portal, San Francisco car accident

[edit]
2024 West Portal, San Francisco car accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of lasting notability, a sad event but all too common. Fram (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic)

[edit]
Swiss Democracy (Czech Republic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD due to having incoming links. However, there is no evidence that the topic of this page meets notability guidelines such as WP:ORG. C679 06:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Dubinsky

[edit]
Shirley Dubinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like a fairly clear WP:BIO1E, I could hardly find any information on her. Eddie891 Talk Work 06:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Eddie891 Talk Work 06:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: As mentioned by nominator, there's not much to note about the individual other than her defection with little post-return coverage. Even "The Defector Study" contains little information. Looking at the template on the page about defectors, it appears that this criteria may apply to other pages too, for example, Harold M. Koch, contributing to my weak assessment that perhaps the series or list of defections (even if one time event) may meet notability threshold in some context. Komodo (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, also the source provided for this article jfk-assassination.net does not seem very reputable. --hroest 12:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is based on her supposed FBI file and the mention in the study that merely reiterates information from that file. I cannot find any other sources on her, other than mere mentions in lists of defectors. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, and no real claim to notability. There is no useful redirect target as an alternative. Schazjmd (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Baer

[edit]
Jonathan Baer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessperson that fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 06:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KCAY

[edit]
KCAY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rarely would I AfD such a recently created article, but this article should be a textbook case for editors returning to the radio stations field that haven't been around it in five or so years.

Once upon a time, the mere fact that a station had a broadcast license was enough in the eyes of observers to guarantee notability. As recently as 2019 or so, new-on-air stations like KCAY would have been eligible for an article as soon as they began broadcasting or sometimes before that. It is true that, historically, licensed radio stations often generated coverage significant to translate into notability, a correlation that was much stronger in the early years of this encyclopedia and held for many U.S. stations that originated their own programming at some point. But that has broken once and for all:

  • In the wake of the 2021 RfC on media notability, the general notability guideline (GNG) became the yardstick for measuring the notability of broadcast stations. Not all of them have been able to measure up.
  • Significant coverage of radio has substantially decreased in the last 10 to 15 years. The reasons for this are the decline in local print journalism and the continued decline (in relative value) of radio as a mass medium and of local media covering the local media. New stations in this period, such as KCAY (which began broadcasting within the last two weeks), struggle to gain sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. It is worth noting that in the context of "significant coverage", routine announcements and FCC documentation (such as are currently referenced on the page, which was part of how it returned to article space) do not count. Even some RadioInsight articles do not qualify for purposes of ascertaining notability.
    • Not relevant to the instant case, but some countries have less reliable sourcing to work with, which unfortunately leads to this being even worse a factor in countries like the Philippines, where I have had to plead with editors to bring better sources to the table.

We have had a revolution in our field that existence is not notability. If I go to the area near St. George, Utah, I could listen to KCAY on my radio. That does not, however, mean it is notable and worthy of a standalone article. A redirect to List of radio stations in Utah is merited, but nothing more. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Utah. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sammi, I have added quite a bit of information about the historical value of KCAY, including its inclusion in a FCC decision that was without precedent. I have also added broadcast site information that identifies KCAY as being located at a former microwave communications TD-2 location and information about a failed sale of the station. There is quite a bit of history associated with KCAY, especially as it relates to the FCC decisions, in my opinion. Matevian (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in Utah I share Sammi's concerns throughout this article; we've long known that for Utah media, and especially the St. George market, there is absolutely no way this station is designed to forever serve that community (their original COL was Caliente, Nevada before the bump to Enterprise, Utah to get into St. George; Nevada is known for very absurd COL moves, including what is now WJLP in New York originating in Ely); they're going to do all they can to force themselves into Salt Lake City, and certainly not with this generic oldies format, and this is just transmitter move no. 1 in a long process to get it near the Great Salt Lake. Right now this is a station you can listen to, nothing more than that, with no established history or even an air staff.
The thing that sticks out to me most though is the creator of the article, Matevian (talk · contribs), had only three edits last decade, and has suddenly returned to create this article, along with WYAB, an article they exhibit ownership over, including the promotion of one of their host's congressional campaigns (and with all of their images uploaded including station logos, as 'own work', possibly including their own picture), so there is definitely a WP:COI in play here, along with possible paid editing. They also continue to push Radio Locator links into their articles, which have long been depreciated. I suspect the IP that has done most of the editing on WYAB is also Matevian, though that cannot be confirmed outside a checkuser and I wouldn't ask for that for an AfD involving a completely different article. So those concerns more than outweigh the issue that this station is non-notable, but also involves a personal conflict of interest due to Matevian's very obvious lack of editing activity outside a few articles they have selected on their own. Nathannah • 📮 14:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm, the LMS system does show someone as KCAY's representative, based at WYAB's studio in Flora, MS, with a WYAB contact address, and a partial match to the above user name (per WP:OUTING no other details will be disclosed here). Nathannah • 📮 15:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the above, the license establishment process is usually a complex but compulsory process where decisions can be made and still undone, and the average reader is hardly concerned about that process at all; most of the time the technical and regulatory details are minimized in an article because that is of no use to the listener at all. Whatever the regulatory issues are with the license have been (a grant reversal because of changes to another licensee, along with "Delete, Delete, Delete" changing the process) aren't of concern usually; the programming, notability and service to the community is usually what clinches WP:N, and a station in a market known to have applicants always trying to move towards another city is usually of little note unless they are on the air and established for a number of years with local service and programming, not just launching operations with a completely automated network or service from elsewhere. Nathannah • 📮 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nathannah, I respectfully believe that the FCC's reversal of a Final Order application grant has significant precedential and historical value. It had not happened in the context of a full power broadcast radio facility until the KCAY decision. The FCC had determined that its KCAY application approval was in error by read of the Order, but the application was not contested in any other way. The FCC does not (generally) review any decision on its own motion, as was the case with KCAY, especially not one that has attained Final Order status. The FCC order on KCAY will almost certainly be cited in future broadcast applications, as it calls into question the FCC's until then well-understood definition of a Final Order grant. Even if not of interest to the radio station's listeners, the KCAY case is certainly of historical notoriety in communications law. Matevian (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Syrian regions

[edit]
Northern Syrian regions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although these do not automatically merit deletion, the article contains huge chunks of unsourced content and info not supported by the cited reference, which I will get to the details later. More importantly, the major problem with this article is that the concept is a WP:SYNTH. As far as I can see, none of the sources mention or delineate this specific "region". "Northern Syrian regions" is not a phrase precedented in reliable sources that specifically refers to these areas of Turkey. "Northern Syria", even within the context of Ottoman history, refers to a far broader region that contains much of modern Syria or Ottoman Syria, including Aleppo. I initially thought at best, this article could be moved to "Turkish Syria", which is mostly found in over a century-old sources but still also refers to Aleppo: [93] The idea I get from this article is that it describes the areas that would be under the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon according to the Treaty of Sèvres, which did not come into full effect. If this were the case, that would be a content fork, too. Now, returning to WP:VERIFY issues, the list of failed verifications is long, but here are a couple of examples: Nowhere does a traveler mention in 1910 here Mardin Province is (or would be) ...% Arab in 1927 or in any year. Nowhere in Morality Tales: Law and Gender in the Ottoman Court of Aintab does Leslie P. Peirce mention the 1927, or say 1550, composition of the city of Aintab. Cited references include WP:SELFPUBLISHED maps such as this which ironically also fails verification. As of this revision, about 15-18 paragraphs do not include a single reference, not that the references necessarily support the content. Overall, assuming this weren't a content fork, it would have to be moved to a verifiable name that at least was utilized by 2-3 sources. Then, a complete cleanup would have to be done, and each bit would have to be verified with the cited reference. The insurmountable amount of issues crosses the region of WP:TNT, which is only assuming there is a way to solve the issues of WP:N, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and WP:SYNTH. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Syria and Turkey. Aintabli (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. There is no coherent underlying subject and too many problems to fix and redistribute the content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible to move it to the draftspace where I can learn more on wikipedia's style and fix it? DaSeashell (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been longer than 7 months since this article's creation. Per WP:DRAFTNO and previous RFC, articles older than 3 months should not be draftified without clear consensus. It is highly unlikely this entry would be improved after draftification, because the issue is not just the lack of references, but the concept itself is a synthesis of numerous sources and is not something that is covered in-depth and described clearly by any of the sources here or elsewhere on the Internet. You are welcome to experiment through your sandbox, in this case, for your prospective well-sourced additions with reliable sources to other articles. On the other hand, this entry is simply untenable. Wikipedia is not some blog site, where you can coin and synthesize new terms and info. Aintabli (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Guha (anthropologist)

[edit]
Abhijit Guha (anthropologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is filled with Self published links, Nothing to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is obvious because this is a biographical article.But these links can be verified whether they are genuine or not. See for example this biographical article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kewal_Krishan_(forensic_anthropologist)#cite_note-4
What's wrong in it? The point is whether the papers are genuine or not. 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comments from the other editor, if you have not seen it already.
Keep then Protect - I consider that the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR criterion 3: The person has created ... a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews - in the Selected publications section, the references are to reviews of his books. It is certainly true that the article is frequently subject to less well sourced additions from IP editors - who probably have a conflict of interest - which are reverted from time to time. I won't revert them during this AfD (and some of the additions may merit a place in Selected publications) but will once it's finished. If the article is kept, I suggest that it be placed under extended confirmed protection to help prevent these kind of additions from happening. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC) 2405:201:900A:D036:A091:6C59:207C:BB20 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 05:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funmilola Ogundana

[edit]
Funmilola Ogundana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find much of any coverage for this Nigerian former sprinter, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. For what it's worth, it looks like she would've met the now-deprecated WP:NTRACK (probably the reason for its creation), albeit via a team relay race and not as an individual. IMO, it would be hard to scrape by even on WP:BASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles require a subscription to view, and sadly most of the news websites that AllAfrica.com aggregates are either defunct or are no longer hosting their 2000s articles. I'm still trying to find the article announcing her death due to childbirth in 2013, which is currently unsourced but I can see that she did die around that time via Facebook posts (1 2), so I know that it must have been covered. Even still, the 10 articles we have are enough to justify a keep vote. --Habst (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley J. Franc

[edit]
Bradley J. Franc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The references used don't establish notability, and WP:BEFORE turned up nothing better. JSFarman (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim to notability under something like WP:NPROF, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL. The best cite appears to be the Forbes article which quotes him but also relates to a personal matter about him and his son, but even if that's significant coverage of him (which I doubt) it's just one article. The rest are mostly profiles which shouldn't be counted as they tend to be self-provided.. Oblivy (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centro Sportivo Giacinto Facchetti

[edit]
Centro Sportivo Giacinto Facchetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without independent secondary sources or WP:SIGCOV, this Italian training ground fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital

[edit]
Tianjin Fourth Central Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to the case of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital, this hospital also appears to fail WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital

[edit]
Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine First Affiliated Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While some sources exist (e.g. [99]), they are not independent secondary sources or otherwise not WP:SIGCOV, and this hospital then fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is as known as The First Teaching Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.In the field of medical academia, research related to this hospital is widely available. Moreover, when searching in its native language, Chinese, even more information can be found. This hospital is a Class A tertiary hospital, the highest tier of public hospitals in China.[100][101][102] Amazingloong (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Jelaca

[edit]
Danny Jelaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hairstylist. Promotional page (including WP:PEACOCK and WP:NOT), by suspicious account, almost certainly paid, including suspicious image. The [one reference] that might be reliable still does not really include substantive commentary about the subject that establishes notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flightline Flight 101

[edit]
Flightline Flight 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated, which is made all the more evident as the Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission did not issue a single recommendation as a result of this accident (Recomendaciones sobre seguridad – page 23). WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks per the above. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairchild Swearingen Metroliner § Accidents and incidents: This article lacks reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, and its WP:LASTING effects are also bare bones. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Blast

[edit]
Toon Blast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem like a notable video game. Despite apparently being a big success, it has only gotten trivial mentions in reliable sources, besides the Pocket Gamer article that feels like a press release. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That being said... the second line is copied from the Pocket Gamer source with minimal changes, and the Gameplay section is copied without attribution from Fandom. The article needs a complete rewrite. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critical Blast does not seem like a WP:RS. So yeah, that's 2 reviews from reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Peak Games, its developer. One of those match-3 games that has heavy prime time/daytime television advertisements obscuring what the object of the game actually is to draw people in (it isn't blasting toons or having fun with them, it's grinding match-3 levels with some bare continuity involving toon characters). Nathannah • 📮 22:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- not in a developed state, but found these three sources: (https://www.criticalblast.com/articles/2021/07/31/toon-blast-honest-review, https://www.commonsensemedia.org/app-reviews/toon-blast, https://www.gamezebo.com/reviews/toon-blast-review-saving-parents-one-game-at-a-time/) when reviewing it, and I think it's notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, Critical Blast does not seem like a reliable website at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Common Sense and two Gamezebo articles should be enough for GNG. This isn't Call of Duty, we have critical discussion in two publications, instead of three. I don't think we need to be so hung up on the number of reviews. This is more than we find for other mobile games that pop up here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's discussed here in a French newspaper. [108] and this is listed as a RS at Project Video Games [109]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The additional sources provided by oaktree have convinced me im not longer having my vote as "weak" keep Scooby453w (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reviews by Gamezebo and Common Sense, and the article by PocketGamer are enough for GNG. Additional sources that I found: Softonic review (not necessarily a reliable source per WP:VG/RS) and the game is mentioned several times in this academic book published by Springer Nature: [110] (not necessarily significant coverage). --Mika1h (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Peak Games. In my opinion, the coverage provided does not demonstrate standalone notability. Video game news is so niche and scarce that sometimes smaller outlets will cover any game so long as someone pays them. Two outlets reviewed the game, so what? This article's existence is basically a free advertisement for the company, for a game that doesn't have any unique mechanics or gameplay – another run-of-the-mill, free-to-play mobile game ripping off Candy Crush. Yue🌙 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz

[edit]
Carlos Gustavo Rosado Muñoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem notable, very weak sourcing with only one source. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since he died in 2013, BLP would no longer apply. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TVMSL

[edit]
TVMSL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has remained unsourced for 15+ years, and I can't find any source that mentions or covers this project. Even the article on Alcatel does not mention this at all. If it exists and isn't a hoax, it's still clearly not notable (or verifiable) enough for an article.

Update: Sources found in DVB-SH#Project_organization. However, most of these sources are primary sources from Alcatel's website, and this still doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. ApexParagon (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia

[edit]
Society for Cultural Interaction in East Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic society. Lacks RSs and seems unlikely any would exist. Cabrils (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Boudreaux

[edit]
Caroline Boudreaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've nominated this individual's nonprofit organization for AfD as well, however I think that the subject of this article itself is not notable either. I've searched the subject up - and it seems that a majority of the sources available are interviews (primary sources) or instances of WP:BLP1E (for their work with the Miracle Foundation, the nonprofit they started). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lamona as all the sources tell the same origin story but little else. That happened in 2000, so there should have been other coverage over the past 25 years. This source shouldn't even be in the article now, as it is mislabeled (it is written by subject, not by someone else) and it is a Forbes contributor site which is not considered WP:RS. All but one of the sources listed by Eddie891 are profiles which are insufficient to establish WP:GNG.--FeralOink (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you elaborate how profiles ‘are insufficient to establish GNG’? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree the coverage of the subject is from a human interest vantage and there are flourishes in the language (i.e. not Woodward and Bernstein journalism), I don't see why these articles are "puff pieces" that don't count towards WP:BASIC. Also, where does it say in Wikipedia policy that coverage in city newspapers where the subject lives doesn't count towards notability? There is quite a bit of information in these articles about the subject herself as well as her organization that evolves over time. There is also coverage that lists the subject's awards in Dataquest, 2019 and Decclan Chronicle, 2018, which include the UBS Global Visionary award and United Nations Humanitarian Award which the subject received in 2017. PS. I removed the Forbes ref from the article as it didn't add anything. Nnev66 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with the gist of what Nnev is saying here- these clearly profiles in well-regarded, prominent newspapers over a range of years (exactly what we look for when establishing notability), and from them it would totally be possible to write a substantive article (if not the longest OOT). not too much else matters. I don't think it fair to dismiss them out of hand as puffery, even if they aren't the best possible. Eddie891 Talk Work 06:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To illustrate what I (above) called "the same story" I ran 3 of the online, textual articles through a plagiarism program. I'm not saying there was plagiarism going on, but such a program detects when the exact same sentence or paragraph is found in multiple sources online. The three came out as 37%, 41% and 48% "alike" with rather large chunks being identical. I assume that we need at least 2 sources with mostly unique content, and I'm not seeing that. I also note that someone has added a youtube video of a ted talk to the article. This is not an independent source. I will move it to the "external links" area. (Giving a TEDx talk is not itself notable - TEDx is described as "TEDx events, which are "essentially, do-it-yourself TED conferences"). I also think that we would get closer to reliability if we can find listing for the awards. I will research that. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm guessing you didn't run through the Austin American-Statesman references from 2007 and 2010 as linked from newspapers.com. These differ more significantly from the CS Monitor, People, and other references from around 2015. Also, I had looked for links to the UBS Global Visionary and United Nations web sites for direct confirmation of awards but their web sites unfortunately don't seem to keep an archive of past awardees. Nnev66 (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case one should consider winnowing down the ones that read like copies and getting the majority of the article from the ones that appear to have more journalistic merit. Lamona (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern with the Austin American-Statesman articles is that Austin, Texas is her hometown and is or was her residence. Coverage, 18 years ago, in her hometown newspaper, doesn't help much for establishing WP:GNG.--FeralOink (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The UN does have a humanitarian award, but Boudreaux is not listed on the UN news site where others are listed. Of course, the UN web site could be lacking - the online entries may not cover the year she was awarded. I searched on her last name. For the "Hope award" - this one is tricky because the only award with that name addresses cancer research. I found the Robert F. Kennedy Ripple of Hope Award but again I don't find her listed. So the awards remain a mystery. Perhaps others will have better results. Lamona (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am leaning towards K*eep for this person, however redirecting or merging it into Miracle Foundation would be an excellent alternative to deletion. I understand that that article has also been nominated for deletion, however it seems quite clear it's notable per GNG and NCORP per these fully independent, secondary reliable sources found in Newspapers.com (access required) that provide significant coverage over a period of years (over ten years of coverage!): [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], and more. I've added my !vote to the other article, waiting for now on !voting here. BTW, WP:BLP1E does not seem to apply here because there is sustained coverage of both Ms. Boudreaux and the foundation for many years. I'd like to hear other editor's thoughts on redirecting/merging if the article on the foundation is kept. Netherzone (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be fine to merge if kept, since the foundation is the only notable thing she has done. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. Her bio and her role should fit nicely into the article on the organization. That said, if the organization is not found to be notable, it would be difficult to find the founder notable if there aren't other projects she was responsible for.
    Lamona (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Miracle Foundation is the only organization or project for which she is known.--FeralOink (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted on the Miracle Foundation AfD that I'm OK with merging the founder into the foundation article. Actually, I've shifted to thinking that would make the most sense - originally my first choice was to keep both articles. I've summarized the best Miracle Foundation sources in reply to Lamona's comment about WP:WHYN and WP:SUSTAINED in that AfD. Nnev66 (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge content to Miracle Foundation, as the sourcing is not really so much about her, but about her role in the Miracle Foundation, which, as stated above by other editors, is the only notable thing she has done. Netherzone (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, I agree with what Drmies said about these particular profiles not being examples of journalism; they are lightweight human interest stories. Next, I noticed (and removed) another source in the article, see talk page section. Author-published book from defunct CreateSpace ("they would publish anything" per Wiki), no page number(s) given. Also, be aware that the Miracle Foundation article is not in good shape. It needs a lot of editing due to really bad writing (sentence fragments, etc.) and was tagged accordingly in the past. And it was mostly written by a COI editor.--FeralOink (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Båntjern

[edit]
Båntjern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a mountain lake in Norway -- fails notability guidelines, by virtue of being a random lake in Norway. There are 300,000 lakes in Norway. Besides that, most of the article fails WP:NOTPROMO, and WP:NOTGUIDE; it talks about the amenities of the lake, like hikes, grills, and a nearby campsite. Serious NPOV issues, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Needless to say no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Norway. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's not a "mountain lake" at all, it's located on the city outskirts and used as a hiking spot/campgrounds. "Needless to say" doesn't seem to hold water (!), why would that be needless to say? Where did you do your WP:BEFORE that is not Google? Geschichte (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Needless to say was poor semantics, I apologize. I did my WP:BEFORE on JSTOR, Gbooks, GScholar, and norwegian google. I said it was a "mountain lake" because the article classifies it as a "tarn," which is a mountain lake. There some things, like "woah guys this lake exists," but imo it still fails under WP:NOTGUIDE-- I could be wrong, and if so, please let me know w/sources etc. This article is also an orphaned article. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austral Launch Vehicle

[edit]
Austral Launch Vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alright -- this article does have some reliable sources, including TheConversation. The issues here are this: this is an orphaned article, and this vehicle is a concept without WP:SIGCOV. See: it doesn't exist in its final form/ yet. As it doesn't really exist yet, WP:TOOSOON, also seems a bit like it violates WP:NOTPROMO. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS is not the end all be all. Just because something has been covered in a reliable source once does not mean that it is Wikipedia worthy; we also have WP:SIGCOV, meaning that articles need to have significant coverage. That pairs with coverage in reliable sources; this article has one reference to TheConversation; no sigcov in reliable sources. Next, there is WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage needs to be continuing and sustained; the last coverage of this subject was about a decade ago, and there hasn't been anything of note since. Fails that. All in all, clear deletion, unless a Wikipedian can find more recent coverage in reliable sources.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary jusf because it hasn't been in a source in a decade doesnt mean it should be deleted the 3 sources span multiple months its not like its something that shows up once on the morning news Scooby453w (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is one reliable source from TEN years ago, in TheConversation. Not enough reliable, independent sources. Finally, it doesn't appear that this project has made any noises for almost ten years, and the final product likely doesn't exist. If you find any more sources, please let me know. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we could do a Merge with Australian Space Agency. The total content makes for about one paragraph or so, but it is still of note. Hal Nordmann (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The sources on ALV I’ve come across, including Springer papers by researchers from the University of Queensland and Heliaq Advanced Engineering [122], [123], are reliable but not independent, so they don’t satisfy WP:GNG. That said, they confirm ALV’s role in Australia’s aerospace research history. A merge into Australian Space Agency would retain this material in a more appropriate context, per WP:PRESERVE. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements. As AnonymousScholar49 notes, this is a project that appears to have been on the backburner for about a decade, having received no independent SIGCOV in that entire period.
I would be happy with a merge, but is Australian Space Agency really the best place? None of the sources I'm seeing even make mention of the ASA, and I don't see a neat place to fit information on this project into the article as it currently exists. Maybe reusable launch vehicle would be a better merge destination? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 09:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sidhi bus accident

[edit]
2021 Sidhi bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Causing deaths and being reported in the news do not confer notability. Fails WP:EVENT. Looking for coverage beyond initial reports only turned up unrelated accidents. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input regarding SYSTEMIC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding SYSTEMIC, see for instance Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Sadly, attacks claiming lives are very common in this region, which is one of the reasons that most of them don't have their own articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Highnesses

[edit]
Air Highnesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [124] [125] [126] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedridden

[edit]
The Bedridden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was flagged since 2007, although the citations template was removed without improvement [127]. There is only one source on the page and that is just a reference to playing a song on a radio show. Searches show almost nothing. I found a reference to a saying attributed to them (wrongly), and some primary sourcing but I cannot find any independent reliable secondary sourced coverage of this non notable band. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article, although about band leader Baterz, mentions The Bedridden:
https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976
It is Baterz' obituary, published in dB Magazine, an Adelaide based reputable street press (https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/2803467) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another Baterz' obituary article from The Canberra Times mentions The Bedridden:
https://oa.anu.edu.au/obituary/ward-barnaby-charles-13976/text24895
Both these obituaries, although not the original copies from the original publications, have been collected by the Australian National University's Obituary Australia (https://oa.anu.edu.au) 149.167.27.78 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article from the Canberra Times about the Bedridden:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/126976895?searchTerm=Baterz 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article from Australian publication (print and online) Beat about a Bedridden compilation:
https://beat.com.au/the-bedridden-gorilla-gorilla-gorilla/ 149.167.27.78 (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With two obituaries (dB Magazine and The Canberra Times) and the Canberra Times and Beat articles, it looks like there's enough to keep something. Whether that's an article about The Bedridden, or an article about Baterz, I'm not sure. (Btw, I found several gig listings for "Baterz Bedridden".) There's also something in Overland in 2002, of which I can only see a snippet [128] - perhaps another obit? The book Rock 'n' roll city. Part two, Adelaide Babylon seems to be only in a few libraries in South Australia, so would need someone there to check it out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. The book, Rock 'n' roll city, part two, Adelaide Babylon is not available in any library service I can access, but I notice that it is self published by the author, Eric Algra. Algra is a photographer, and so I would expect that this volume contains photography - an image of the band - but not SIGCOV. Neither would it be a WP:RS as it would be self published by someone who is not an established expert in the field of music. Any information it contained about the band would likely have come directly from them or their publishing material. So I think it is out on a number of counts. Obituaries are often not independent, but in any case they would support (or not) a page on Baterz. I don't see SIGCOV on the band in (Smith, 2002). There is a bit more in (Jones, 2002). The piece in the Canberra Times is primary. The piece in Beat is secondary though. It's all pretty marginal. Can we make a page from The Beat piece and the Jones obit? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush

[edit]
The Push from the Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Interesting topic but doesn’t appear to satisfy WP:GN or WP:NBOOK. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 11:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Ryan Hinton and Larry Henderson

[edit]
Killing of Ryan Hinton and Larry Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill news story, and I don't see anything on them from before that. This is a WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E problem, and fails WP:GNG as well. Sophisticatedevening🍷(talk) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who created Killing of Ryan Hinton and Larry Henderson.
What's going to happen with this article is the exact same thing that happened with a different article that I created, and which was also nominated for deletion.
I recently created Rochester, Minnesota racial slur video, and it was nominated for deletion, for the same reason as this one. But soon afterward, a bunch of other people added a whole bunch of content, and the deletion nomination was withdrawn.
The exact same thing will happen with this article.
Give it a week. It if turns out that I'm wrong, then I'll admit that I was wrong, and I'll be OK with deleting it.
R5Y93mdf (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy House

[edit]
Legacy House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alright -- the subject of this article fails WP:GNG, and notability for companies because of lack of WP:SIGCOV, and WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS. There are lots of sources, but they are either WP:ROUTINE, very old announcements of the opening, or not independent. This article has serious NPOV issues to go along with that -- seems like advertising and promotion. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Council on Compensation Insurance

[edit]
National Council on Compensation Insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no references at all to this insurance-related industry-funded company in Florida. FeralOink (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this article needs to be improved and sourced (If I have time I will do those things later,) but this article has reliable sources and the subject is notable. After all, notability is based off of the existence of sources, not just the ones in the article. It's also a non-profit, not really a company. Here we go: [134][135][136][137][138][139] (Primary, non independent source), [140][141][142][143][144][145]. In essence, this is a data collection non profit for the insurance industry, and its relatively influential and important. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and the WP:NORG guidelines. In the future, please conduct an adequate WP:BEFORE check. --AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Mayoral elections in Norfolk, Virginia. Page author and nominator in agreement, uncontroversial close should not violate WP:NACD (non-admin closure) Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Norfolk mayoral election

[edit]
2020 Norfolk mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local elections do not have presumed notability, and this is an essentially uncontested election that lacks significant coverage (because it was uncontested) Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mayoral elections in Norfolk, Virginia - which would follow similar suit to Mayoral elections in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Since the 2006 election was the first mayoral election in Norfolk's history, one article combining all elections should achieve significant notability while including cited voting data for every election. Vataxevader (talk) 01:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vataxevader merge would definitely work if you create that page, and if any of the ones that already have pages would be notable as their own page they could be kept as such Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, I do not know how to merge the existing pages into the new page without copying and pasting the content. I am not sure if an administrator can do this or if there is a merge tool I am not aware of Vataxevader (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vataxevader there is not a tool that I know of that can do this, but copy and pasting it would be completely fine. All you would have to do is make sure the sections line up Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoblyblob Will do, thank you for following your duties Vataxevader (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Chérif Baba Aidara

[edit]
Chérif Baba Aidara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Almost all the sources are databases/results lisings and not SIGCOV for meeting WP:SPORTSCRIT. This appears to be a dead link. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject was notable enough to have been selected for two Olympics, and achieved the best ever global placing by a Mauritanian (population of 4.3 million people). There are large systemic barriers to access about African topics and people, and the most likely venues for coverage have all, without exception, not published their 1990s daily archives online for whatever reason. The notability of any article is always determined by the existence of sources, not their availability, and the issue with the recent mass deletion of hundreds of articles is that the amount of time it would take to hunt these sources has to be split among hundreds of articles.
Also, the Africathle source is not a dead link for me. Try Webarchive? --Habst (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Africathle source is just a results listing and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. We need better sources than that. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that better secondary sources are needed. --Habst (talk) 02:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fika Recordings

[edit]
Fika Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the sources in the article, the only kinda in-depth coverage is in WeGotTickets (a ticketing company?) and DrownedInSound (web-zine). There's an interview w/ the founder in BBC Music blog, but I'm not convinced any of these are strong enough reliable sources for a notability argument. All the others are just mentions of Fika in the context of an album that has been released etc. WP:BEFORE in newspapers.com, google news/books, pressreader didn't turn up any additional coverage beyond mentions. Considered ATD but I don't see a clear merge or redirect target as the founder doesn't appear to be notable and the record label is associated with multiple musical groups. Zzz plant (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negousse Mengistou

[edit]
Negousse Mengistou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The article currently only has references to databases, and all I could find in secondary sources was a namedrop at [[146]]. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Formative epistemology

[edit]
Formative epistemology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly a hoax article or attempt at a misleading POV fork. The cited sources are almost all fake articles that have been renamed from "naturalized epistemology" to "formative epistemology". The non-fake articles do not mention formative epistemology and are in fact discussing naturalized epistemology. This is also the case for the bibliography. Performing a search for sources, I couldn't find anything suggesting this satisfies GNG. Shapeyness (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree this is a probable hoax. The Stanford Encyclopedia is currently not accessible. The revision history of only three edits to create the article. Possible paste job (User contributions for Carpeyourmom) from somewhere else. Seems pretty scant, considering the length of the article. Compare with the 2001 Featured Article Epistemology. — Maile (talk) 02:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mizell

[edit]
Stephen Mizell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP:ROTM American pastor/businessman. Promotional page (WP:PEACOCK) that appears like an advertorial CV (WP:NOT). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Thurii

[edit]
Battle of Thurii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found while browsing Wikipedia:Database reports/Forgotten articles. Cannot find any books or sources that mention this supposed battle that predate the creation of this article in 2007. The only "citations" this article has are incomplete citations which just say a book title and nothing else. No authors, no year of publishing, no ISBN, nothing. And the "source" titles are extremely vague, like "History of Rome" or "Antiquity".

(Note: I know there were actual battles between Tarantos and ancient Rome for control of the area, but I cannot find evidence that "Battle of Thurii" was one of those battles, or that there was any "naval battle" for the region.) ApexParagon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The editor who created this stub seems to have been inactive on Wikipedia since 2013, but nothing on his/her talk page suggests that it was created as a hoax (I was looking for warnings of various sorts). Given that the part about Thurii is only a single sentence, while the rest concerns Rome's conflict with Tarentum, I wonder if perhaps the editor was confused about the sequence of events—perhaps including the dates. My first thought was to check the history of the cities in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, and see if it mentioned something similar to a battle at this time. Under "Tarentum", at p. 1097, if you scroll down the first column there's a description of Rome and Tarentum coming into conflict over Thurii, though this is supposed to have occurred in 302 BC, while the Tarentines didn't call in Pyrrhus until 281, when the Romans declared war on Tarentum.
This sounds like what the article creator had in mind, but unless the description is in error—which is possible, though it's hard to see "302" as a typo for "282" under "Tarentum"—the editor might have been confused by a less precise description such as the corresponding passage under "Thurii", top of the first column on p. 1193. I believe both are citing Appian's Samnite Wars, though additional sources are cited in "Tarentum" that might also shed light on this. I agree that the existing citations for this article are not very helpful, but thankfully knowing what sources describe the conflicts may help sort out whether there's enough here to salvage (at the very least, it can probably be merged under Thurii, Tarentum, and Pyrrhus, which would technically not be a deletion).
I expect Broughton can also be cited. I did not resort to PW, because wading through pages of densely-annotated German that I have to translate by retyping passages that I think are relevant on Google can be quite time-consuming! Not sure where else I would look besides the Greek and Roman authors cited in the DGRG, but perhaps someone else has some ideas on that. In any case, I think we can conclude that the article is not a hoax, but it might not be focused on its purported subject—Thurii—and might be better off mentioned in other articles than as a stand-alone one. P Aculeius (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's secondary school, Kitende

[edit]
St. Mary's secondary school, Kitende (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Nothing to establish notability and would seem unlikely any RSs exist. fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no indication that this passes WP:NSCHOOL, there are some articles about the schools sports results and a fire but not much on the school itself. --hroest 13:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ali Al-Malky

[edit]
Mohamed Ali Al-Malky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. No significant third party coverage. Olympians.sa appears to be a primary source of the Saudi OIympic federation, in any case it seems just to a database listing of athletes. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of indepth third party sourcing. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I didn't want to de-PROD this right away was because I wanted to do a source search using both Arabic names which might take several days. I doubt we'll have time now that three other Olympian articles were nominated within minutes of this one (see 1 2 3), along with over 100 other recent PRODs that need to be dealt with. These mass-AfDs and PRODs have been controversial, because if you nominate articles with high enough frequency there are bound to be notable ones that fall through.
On the substance, the athlete was an Olympic Saudi Arabian sprinter that was likely covered in extant Saudi sources in the 1970s, but both those sources and coverage of the competitions he might have succeeded in, like the GCC Games, are not available to us easily. --Habst (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're trying the line that this "has been controversial" to dissuade others, the village pump has been running for 2 months without an outcome. Plus still recycling the tired NEXIST argument that has been discounted in these athlete AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, I have a lot of respect for your contributions and I hope you can show me the same respect. I would never "try lines" because I never say something in AfDs that I don't believe. Yes, the village pump discussion has been running for months without an outcome, which is why it is controversial. WP:N (which includes NEXIST) isn't tired in the same way that WP:V doesn't get tired – they are core P&G used in creating an encyclopedia. When has it ever been discounted? --Habst (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not having an outcome doesn't mean it's controversial. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in this case the reason there is no outcome yet is because there have been hundreds of comments both for and against, which is why the topic is controversial. I'm not even trying to say that there is community consensus against it right now – just that it is controversial, and it presents a problem. --Habst (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all controversial compared to other users starting 50 AFDs on the same topic in one day, 50-100 concurrent prods, etc. And certainly it is still much less controversial than the creation of all the lousy articles. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, I agree and appreciate your contributions. But neither of those other scenarios are currently happening, while this is a current issue. --Habst (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Designs PLC

[edit]
Hybrid Designs PLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Coverage is routine and WP:ROTM. Fails WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/pakistan-indian-rafale-fighter-jet-pib-factcheck-debunks-isis-misinformation-campaign-jf17-thunder-operation-sindoor-india-air-strike-news/articleshow/120951433.cms?from=mdr
  2. ^ https://www.indiatvnews.com/fact-check/fact-check-no-pakistan-didn-t-hit-srinagar-airbase-brigade-hq-or-shot-down-fighter-jet-rafale-viral-videos-are-fake-2025-05-07-989039
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"