Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 21	April 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Caroline Boudreaux

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4. Other profiles that I'm not as sure about: [1], [2]. These all offer significant coverage in reliable sources. A career is not one event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Foundation

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

Subject doesn't seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. I feel like the subject isn't notable, and even if it was, it would likely be a case of WP:BLP1E. For example, the People and USA Today article are solid to establish notability, but with one catch - that's only about the founder starting the nonprofit. There's no sustained coverage aside from that. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, Texas, and North America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage like AJC D1 + AJC D6, The Monitor, Austin American-Statesman, Business World New Dehli. This coverage is significant and focuses on the organization. Nnev66 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theodora Taylor

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

Not sure this meets WP:NATHLETE and I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources for it. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy since the article is very new. These are the only decent sources I can find [3][4]. The second of those two isn't independent, since she was affiliated with Team GB for youth olympic festival. Subject is very young, I think it's likely they will meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NATHLETE in the future but today it seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Zzz plant (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. The article does not conform to WP:SPORTCRIT which is why I don't favor draftification. Geschichte (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable by WP:SPORTSBASIC 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 04:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing appears to confer notability. Second choice, Draftify: this unsourced bullet list is not an article fit for mainspace. PamD 08:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, the subject fails WP:NATHLETE, and the sources are sparse. It also fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:SPORTSBASIC. I agree that it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the article, as it stands, is not ready for the mainspace.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafig Alekber

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

Not a notable person. Most references are hard to analyze. Not related and ambiguous citations and mostly not a single reason for a notability. Yousiphh (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yousiphh (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goshen, Scott County, Indiana

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

A "no there there" place which has some houses around it now, but they are all fairly new and just strung out along the road. Searching came up with nothing but it's possible it is masked by the other, most-definitely-a-town Goshen. Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS, no article; fails WP:NPLACE. Gotta love the "well, duh" explanation of the name, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shahriyar Majidzade

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

Not a notable person. Yousiphh (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Yousiphh (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeeka Guruge

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

Fails the requirements of WP:ANYBIO / WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks significant coverage of the individual in multiple reliable sources. Apart from the Sunday Observer article, the others are just mentions in passing. It has also been extensively edited by, what appears to be, the individual the subject of the article - WP:SELFPROMOTION. Has been tagged as not meeting WP:GNG, since February 2016, without any substantive improvements to the referencing/sourcing. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the concerns about the possible autobiographical edits, 11 of the 16 sources appear to be dead links and bring up a 404 error when trying to access them. Based on the titles, these sources may follow a similar pattern described later. Most of the remaining ones are either plot summaries of a movie that lists the subject in the cast (source 8 for example) or articles discussing a movie and listing the subject as a music director (with no further mention or coverage of the subject), such as in sources 9 and 10. The first links that appear when doing a search of the subject include profiles on Facebook and YouTube, his official site, and a few other similar articles similarly providing a passing mention but not significant coverage of him (such as him performing at an event). ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 07:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has since been updated with 36 reliable sources, most of which are now accessible and provide substantial coverage beyond passing mentions. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even after rewrite. The sources provided are mostly IMDB. While there are newspapers, they appear to be excessively promotional and making outlandish statements. For these reasons I do not believe WP:GNG is met. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 13:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been revised with a stronger set of 36 sources, focusing on reliable newspaper coverage with less emphasis on IMDb or promotional tone. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has won notable awards and these sources here and here are significant coverage in reliable sources in my opinion Atlantic306 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First source looks ok (i believe this is the source mentioned in nom) but second source is a thinly disguised press release that is not significant coverage of the subject. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 05:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The updated article now includes 36 references, many of which provide substantial coverage of the subject from reliable, independent sources. I believe this demonstrates notability more clearly. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe any of the sources in the article demonstrate all 3 of significance, independence, or reliability. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 16:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback.
You mentioned that none of the sources in the article demonstrate all three criteria: significance, independence, and reliability. Could you please clarify which sources you reviewed and how they fall short in each of those specific areas? Without a detailed explanation, it’s difficult to understand the basis of your conclusion or to address any shortcomings effectively.

Additionally, I would like to point out that the subject is referenced in over 140 existing Wikipedia articles, which indicates a degree of established notability. You can verify this using the following search link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=Nadeeka+Guruge

A more specific breakdown of your concerns would be greatly appreciated so that we can improve the article accordingly.

Maduka Jayalath (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 18:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized this, but some of Maduka Jayalath’s comments above appear to be AI-generated starting from the "Thank you for your feedback" one, as those comments and the one below this one from them scored 100% on GPTZero. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 12:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been thoroughly updated with a broader range of reliable sources, including citations from established Wikipedia articles and recognized newspapers. These additions aim to enhance the article’s credibility and depth. A fresh review would be appreciated. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nadeeka Guruge is an award winning artists in Sri Lanka with rare human qualities. I don't think it is fare for non Sri Lanka born or non Sri Lankan resident to propose deletion of this Article without even knowing our language + without knowing the contribution done to Sri Lankan Music by maestro Nadeeka Guruge.

You may read articles at ^[1] to know more about him and his works. Additionally please check ^[2] (SLTC Registration ^[3]look for SLT Campus) to know his contribution towards music education in Sri Lanka.

I strongly disagree about Non Sri Lankan users requesting to delete a humble and non commercialized artists profiles without even doing a proper research. I hope MODS will take necessary actions to prevent this kind of things again. Thank You.

Damith Rushika Kothalawala (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Oh good lord a vote from an account whose last real edit was in 2016. Go read WP:CANVASS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting following the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 April 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can someone please give a detailed review of the Sinhalese references as I can't get Google Translate to work with them, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Atlantic306,

If you're using the Google Chrome browser, it works perfectly for me without any issues.

Just right-click anywhere on the page and select "Translate to English"

Please see the screenshots for reference.

Note: If you see an error message like “Could not translate this page” try refreshing the page and trying again.

Let me know if it still doesn't work on your end, happy to help further! Maduka Jayalath (talk) 01:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted English translations of Sinhala-language sources on Talk:Nadeeka Guruge#English Translations of Sinhala References. Please review the translations or suggest priority claims for verification. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be a collection of articles largely based on interviews or just passing mentions. I don't see anything in these sources to indicate notability per Wikipedia guidelines. --John B123 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123 please note that these translations cover only the non-English references, 15 in total while the subject article, Nadeeka Guruge, includes over 40 references in total. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removing the COI notice in response to the original proposer, as discussed at Talk:Nadeeka Guruge#COI. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 06:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maduka Jayalath: It's the quality of sources that count towards notability not the quantity. Please indicate what you consider the 3 best sources that meet the WP:GNG requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --John B123 (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three sources that offer significant, independent coverage of the subject, excluding interviews and passing mentions

1. Reference #4

2. Reference #3

3. Reference #2

Apart from WP:GNG, a search for the subject on Wikipedia reveals over 40 mentions across other articles, which highlights the subject’s relevance and further supports the case for the article’s existence. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No immediate comment on 1 and 2 in your list, but I am calling WP:NEWSORGINDIA on the fawning coverage of number 3 (which you call, Reference #2. That is, [5]). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the author of the mentioned article (Reference #2), Sunil Thenabadu, he is described as a recognized freelance journalist in the Sunday Times (1 October 2023, link). He has also published work in the Daily News (link), a well-established and reliable newspaper in Sri Lanka, along with other reliable newspapers, as can be confirmed with a quick online search. Maduka Jayalath (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luzzu oil field

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

It's not notable and it's unsourced _Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 21:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Only stuff I found was another paper was http://www.csun.edu/~dorsogna/byron/MOG.pdf from 2006 and just a passing mention. Other than that were Wikipedia mirrors. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 04:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illiterate popes

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

This appears to be an article premised on original research, as none of the sources seem to describe the concept of papal illiteracy collectively, instead discussing individual popes and their illiteracy. Further, some of the references are probably not RS (looking at the pre-1920 sources especially). Maybe this could be a category, but I doubt it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Christianity, and Europe. Pbritti (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a category would be reasonable, as long as we can transfer the text (or write an equivalent) in the articles for the popes in question. Marisauna (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - By whose standards? In what millennium? If any pope was illiterate, couldn't that indicate most people in that time and place were illiterate? There are conflicting accounts of whether or not even Jesus was literate. As for the pope, who cares? At best, this article has seven sources - hardly enough sourcing to decide this one way or the other. Nonsense stuff. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be WP:OR and a violation of WP:CROSSCAT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do like slightly unusual and provoking topics. However, my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any sources with significant coverage of the topic area generally (as opposed to individual cases), so not notable that I can see. Therefore, as others have noted, the article strays heavily into the territory of WP:OR. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad of a scope, fails WP:NLIST, and also borderline WP:TRIVIA jolielover♥talk 05:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Qualitist (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gyi Khin Pe

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources to pass WP:SPORTSBASIC. The only source in the article is a database, while a BEFORE came up with a mention from historian Paul Tchir but that doesn't come close to meeting the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Myanmar, and Australia. Let'srun (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear notable in WP:SPORTSBASIC 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 04:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadagat Huseynova

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

Not notable person. Most references are hard to analyze. Not related and ambiguous citations and mostly not a single reason for a notability. Yousiphh (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Yousiphh (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Default Keep: Comment. I am reluctant to support such an ill-prepared nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Squid Craft Games 2

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

Fails WP:GNG, with no significant-coverage regarding this event beyond the fact that it happened. The sources in the article also seem rather questionable at best (Invenglobal, Softonic, Streamscharts, etc.) And once again, they don't seem to say anything beyond the fact that this thing happened, or who won it. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Events. λ NegativeMP1 19:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Internet. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Invenglobal is reliable per WP:GAMESOURCES#Esports. While MeriStation (Source 3, 7) are reliable per WP:GAMESOURCES#Other reliable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz Mountain mine

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

Non-notable and may not exist in this form.

This was created in 2013 and hasn't really been edited since then. Unfortunately, Bine Mai hasn't edited since 2019 so I'm unable to ask them about this as I believe they may have mixed this up with another mine.

I have looked for sources but the only Quartz Mountain mine, operated by Seabridge (mentioned in the only reference), I can find is this one but located in Oregon. There is another Quartz Mountain in the Kootenays but run by Klondike Gold.

The Government of the NWT's 2024 mining review doesn't mention this mine. The reference in the article is used to say it's one of the largest gold mines, located in the NWT, and has 2.74 million ounces. However, the source, as far as I can see, does not support these claims. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haroun Conteh

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

Subject only played in lower professional leagues and is currently a collegiate athlete, thus WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON appear relevant. Raskuly (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Arizona. Raskuly (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost all of the references in the articles are player profiles on various sites, along with a game summary from a previous game. When I search for other sources, pretty much all I can find are more player profiles, his Instagram account, and a few more game summaries, the latter of which would be considered routine coverage and would not help to establish notability. Based on what I can find about the subject, I don't believe WP:GNG is met. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 19:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBD Television

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

No refs on the page for many years. Doesn't seem to have notability outside of DCD Media JMWt (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Burgers

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

Not seeing the level of substantive independent secondary sources to meet the notability standards for inclusion. I see some that are not currently on the page such as 1 but this seems to be routine and PR churn. JMWt (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some more reviews, a lot in The Argus (Brighton), e.g. 'this article, also a review in The Bracknell News, The Evening Standard 1 and 2, The Reading Chronicle, Bristol Post, the Hertfordshire Mercury, and a bunch more accessible through searching gnews for '"Honest Burgers" review'. These all look like pretty legit, if local, reviews. There's also a couple paragraphs in The Guardian, it was used as a sample local restaurant in Financial Times, and The Times included the chain's co-founder as one of their "How I Made It" features. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article itself could use a lot of work, Honest Burgers with 39 locations has a lot of sources discussing it, which you can see when googling it. I remember doing a case study of Honest Burgers in business studies a few years ago. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Chunga-Kutama

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Source #1 and #2 are dead links, source #3 does not appear to be reliable/no WP:SIGCOV, source #4 is relatively better and OK, source #5 is again no WP:SIGCOV, and sources #6-9 are either dead links, or aren't reliable. Also, a significant contributor to this article has a WP:COI (they are the subject themselves). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Africa, and South Africa. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the edit is myself. Rina Chunga, Its all factual RinaChunga (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable and independent sourcing, see WP:IS. If you want to write about yourself, try LinkedIn or a blog. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RinaChunga: Kindly disclose that you are the subject of the article. Also Autobiography is strongly discourage on Wikipedia see WP:AUTOBIO. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Diego Zelaya

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

The article looks like a big curriculum of his life, nothing relevant that could be useful for an article, only external links that redirects to his social media, due of its time in the encyclopedia i’ve opened this discussion. Emolga826 (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Canada, Honduras, Louisiana, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominations like this are why it is important to check the page history before nominating. The article is in its current state primarily due to one editor; these edits can be reverted to a stable version with no issue. As a member of the Honduran Congress, the subject passes WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon7. Mccapra (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NPOL due as a member of National Congress of Honduras. Deshittify it (revert to the last stable version) once the AFD is closed. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Araz Budagov

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

Not notable person. Yousiphh (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to be a memorial page. The article on az.wiki is also up for deletion because of lack of notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most references lack links and are hard to analyze. The three that have links have no mention of the subject in the articles. Awards are unreferenced. Rest of life description has no credible claims to notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Kia

AfDs for this article:

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

all the sources are unreliable or don't have significant coverage Genius is not reliable, sister dominic is not reliable, AllMusic is barely reliable , complex don't have significant coverage of the artist, Billboard don't have significant coverage of the artist, Rap-Up don't have significant coverage of the artist, XXL MAG don't have significant coverage of the artist. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shadik Kayem

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

Does not meet the minimum notability requirements in any way. Somajyoti ✉ 17:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 17:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Front of Canalenan Unity

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

Delete – The article fails to meet the WP:GNG and the criteria outlined in WP:NPOL. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss the party in depth. The current content is minimal and unsourced, providing only basic information about the party's origin, symbol, and past municipal representation. AndesExplorer (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Guatemala. AndesExplorer (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I can only find passing mentions in a couple of college theses. There is no coverage at all in local news sources. My guess is that this was a comité cívico that never became a full-fledged party and is no longer active. –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before (short story)

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

Delete – The article does not meet the General Notability Guideline or the criteria outlined in WP:NBOOK. There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that discuss the short story in depth. AndesExplorer (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AndesExplorer (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gael_Baudino#Short_stories. I can't find any substantial coverage of this in reliable sources. It was published, but there's really little discussion of this beyond mentions in non-usable places. I think it's as covered as it needs to be on the main bibliography section for the author. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I also couldn't find any reviews or coverage of this particular short story, and only found a couple of passing mentions of the collection it was published in. A redirect to the relevant section of the author's article seems appropriate here. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ GoldRomean (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bad Popes

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

Fails WP:NBOOK,the only independent reliable source I could find was this 1969 Atlantic article [6]; other mentions are just bookstores. GoldRomean (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Reliable sources have been found showing article conforms to WP:NBOOK.

Comment - I would be surprised if the only review a book got was in The Atlantic, a fairly major publication. Will look into it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, newspapers.com reveals at least three reviews: 1, 2, 3. JSTOR has this one: 1, As well as this 2019 retrospective in the National Catholic Register. I think that's more than enough to establish NBOOK Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added 11 reviews. According to a newspaper ad, there is also supposed to be a review in Publishers' Weekly. Geschichte (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rightware

AfDs for this article:

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose due to inaccurate nomination this article needs to be updated and there is missing information, but it is not fair to say that it should be deleted because it is not notable and relies on promotional material or self published sources when the sources used are TechCrunch, VentureBeat, etc. There are some self published sources that could be removed, and could have been removed by the nominator faster than creating this AfD. At the same time there are plenty of other RS that could be added to enhance the article and improve it such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 which all support that this firm is notable according to WP:NCORP Nayyn (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources meet NCORP? Specifically, which sources contain "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company* and not just regurgitated company info or based on quotes from execs? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nayyn: please clarify

This from tech.eu dated 19 Dec 2019 relies entirely on regurgitating this announcement from the same date issued from the company. It contains no independent content and fails ORGIND.
[This fails for the exact same reasons but also because they are a connected party, having advised on the deal. Fails ORGIND.
[This is a Press Release written by the company, obviously press releases are not independent content, fails ORGIND.
This is another regurgitation of a company press release. Fails ORGIND.
This techcrunch article fails ORGIND for the exact same reasons as the first two.

I'm baffled as to how these references can possibly meet NCORP. Can you clarify which paragraphs in each source contains in-depth "independent content" or how they otherwise meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing do you no longer hold your previous view on this? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stockhausenfan, the previous AfD was over 7 years ago and since then, it has been established that reviews of the software product do not confer notability on the company. If the article was about the software, then the software reviews could be used to establish notability on the software. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons as the previous AfD (which is not addressed by the new nomination). Stockhausenfan (talk)

@Stockhausenfan:. Which references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability of the company? Which parts of the articles are in-depth "independent content" *about* the *company*? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Apex municipal election

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

Article about a smalltown municipal election, not properly sourced as a notable event. As always, Wikipedia does not indiscriminately maintain an article about every single municipal council election that happens -- we can keep articles about mayoral and city council elections in major cities whose elections can be reliably sourced as notable events, but do not routinely keep an article about every single municipal election that happens in every town or city across the board.
But the referencing here consists entirely of directly affiliated primary sources -- the town council website, the self-published websites of council candidates and the self-published Substack newsletter of an incumbent town councillor in one of the seats that isn't up for reelection this year -- which are not support for notability, and absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-building coverage in reliable sources has been shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and North Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even looking through actual sources, they're very WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. All cities and towns have municipal elections, we'd need much more in-depth sources to keep this one. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 22:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete routine municipal election. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I generally am in favor of more electoral coverage on here and the definition of "routine" sources, but this does not have enough sources. Most sources are from an independent journalist, not a bad thing, but more from media outlets is needed. Can't find anything non-primary with a google search either. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DOGBITESMAN. Really? An election article for a small town? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the death of Pope Francis

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Responses to events, disasters, deaths &c. are not inherently notable. The article is little more than a list of boilerplate expressions of condolences from prominent persons and governments almost none of which have any enduring significance It's a glorified quote farm. A merge discussion was opened but appears to be going sideways with little participation so I'm opening this with the hopes of getting a little more participation from the broader community. FTR, I am fine with merging a handful of these, such as declarations of official state mourning into Death and funeral of Pope Francis. But 95% of this is just a waste of cyber ink at best and fancruft at worst. No need for a redirect. Merge the few that are worth keeping and delete the page. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Events, Religion, Christianity, Lists, and Italy. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close Wait six months until the new pope is clearly established and then merge this, rather than trying to CRYSTAL-intuit a lack of future coverage. The "win" by deleting this earlier is not worth the churn. Jclemens (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to wait until a new pope has been established or later before merging. 41.210.141.7 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following the argument here. We should keep this in the expectation that some/all may eventually become notable? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What part of The "win" [...] is not worth the churn. was unclear? I absolutely expect this will be merged and not exist as a separate article in 6-12 months. I absolutely do not believe this nomination at this time is a good look or good use of resources. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the clarification. But I'm still not seeing an argument to keep this. The death of the pope is the event, which is obviously notable. Anything that belongs there can and should be added to that page. No need to wait six months. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Whilst reactions may not be notable, other pages have separated them from their death (e.g. Elizabeth II). The page also allows the article of the death of the pope to not clutter. The article for the death will expand with the funeral taking place so reactions should remain seperate.STCSTW (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Keep this as this article DOES pass Wikipedia:GNG AND passes the WP:NOTA guidelines. This may get merged. 47.132.117.15 (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does it pass Wikipedia:GNG and WP:NOTA guidelines, calling it a glorified quote farm is misleading and frankly offensive. Pope Francis was a significant and sometimes divisive international figure in contemporary history and as such the reactions to his passing are "fancrust." I am all for mergeing this article with the extended article on Pope Francis' funeral and the following period of mourning that takes place but even if that were not to happen, I think the existent of the page is merited as it meets the standards and follows precident. Lafarrer3 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Article clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTA as stated above. Also, with the ongoing funeral, more reactions from notable figure or organizations may arrive, so it's best we wait an extend the article. Otherwise, if all else fails, merge with Death and funeral of Pope Francis. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 19:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the quote farm There is nothing of substance to any of these snippets. Seriously, what does anyone learn by stating here that the South African president said Francis made "the Church and the world a better place". Saying this this passes GNG is meaningless. Of course the concept of reactions is notable, but that doesn't mean we need a massive list that says "expressed his condolences" more than 80 times. We moved beyond this sort of repetitive statements a long time ago and generally do not do these anymore, and I see no reason to maintain this in this format even for the Pope's death. Pick significant examples and themes to provide or summarize without needing every single one that doesn't add to our understanding. Reywas92^Talk 20:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete As in the case of Queen Elizabeth II, I think it's a good idea to keep two separate pages, given the size of the reactions and the overall proportion. I believe that adding another page (such as the funeral page) makes the page too long, so it's two independent pages.Mtvdanilo (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because something meets notability doesn't mean it should have an article.

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 21:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If its notable, then there has to be a reason for it to not be its own article Redacted II (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think some of these comments are notable enough to create an article. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 21:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It makes no sense to delete it Yesyesmrcool (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit down and merge back These reaction articles are mostly junk because most such reactions are extremely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL; most of them are just not notable. In this case there are a few, a few, that have attracted attention in their own right, and those which have attracted such attention should be mentioned back in the main article's section on his death. But mostly it's a case of the usual WP fault of being unable to keep things short and thus creating sprawling and often repetitive heaps of prose which do not serve the reader. Mangoe (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Subject passes WP:GNG.

Redacted II (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It certainly passes WP:GNG. The pope was a head of state and we have reactions articles to the deaths of several other heads of state. This is Paul (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all reasons above Underdwarf58 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: The pope has died yesterday, and we're still in the process of dealing with the funeral, the reactions, the lasting legacy and all that. At this point, this seems a valid fork of the "Death of..." article. We may revisit this in some months, once the dust has settled. Cambalachero (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable subject, and is currently gaining more coverage. desmay (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

either (ideally) Keep or merge into Death of Pope Francis. Keep is supported by the fact that other comparable articles for heads of state exist. Maximilian775 (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets WP:GNG. Aqurs1 (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep There is an ongoing Merge discussion. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, ongoing, fit for merger at later date talk 11:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, death is extremely notable, and the reactions are also notable. At the very least Merge with Death and funeral of Pope Francis, as the reactions are still important to the event. Gaismagorm (talk) 11:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is definitely notable and well sourced. TheBritinator (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Wait, clearly a notable event, at least for now. The Seal F1 (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, then merge back once more info comes to light. He literally died 2 days ago (as of me writing this), I don't quite think it's quite the appropriate time to have an article just yet.

Madeline1805 (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Periodization of the Shang dynasty

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

Okay, could be off the mark here, but I am not seeing any in-depth coverage regarding this concept. Seems to be a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As discussed previously in places like Talk:Late Shang, there are different ways used by academic sources to periodize the Shang dynasty, which is itself a helpful and interesting topic. For example, many academic sources divide the main Shang period into 2 phases (Early Shang and Late Shang), whereas various other sources divide it into 3 phases (Early Shang, Middle Shang, and Late Shang), etc. Also, the article Late Shang is currently about “Late Shang” within a certain periodization method (starting from Wu Ding), but there are also different ways of understanding the term (e.g. starting from Pan Geng). The periodization of the Shang dynasty is often associated with Shang archaeology, which is itself an important topic. In any case, this general article (Periodization of the Shang dynasty) is used to explain such things as done in academic sources, although of course the article can be further expanded for even more detailed coverage. —Wengier (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this is not OR or SYNTH. It is an important topic of scholarly discussion and a set of real archeological terms. See, for instance, this footnote and the many comments in WP:Featured article candidates/Guandimiao/archive1 around the use of "Anyang", "Erligang culture", "Late Shang" etc., like right under here. In fact, based on that discussion this article is evidently not complete. (Not sure if it would be appropriate to ping editors involved in that FAC for comment.) Toadspike [Talk] 12:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inputting Esperanto text on computers

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

I believe this is more a guide than an encyclopedic page (WP:NOTHOWTO) Dajasj (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be useful info for people. Maybe best exported to Wikibooks — kwami (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, and besides, everything in this article can be found in Esperanto alphabet, making the article a redundant POV-fork. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stiltz Lifts

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

Notability appears to be dependant on use by notable people. WP:NOTINHERITED. TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources here are very weak and most seem pretty much WP:PROMO. Simonm223 (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure how this made it out of AfC but nothing on the page (and nothing in a WP:BEFORE) meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However seems to align with other company pages --> Stannah Lifts --> arguably with more reference points. Smithmongoose477 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1228 road (England)

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

Wikipedia is not a road atlas of the UK. Absolutely no reason given why this short bit of road is in any way noteworthy. TheLongTone (talk) 14:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoldRomean (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it should stay as I only had a few minutes to write it. It's part of WikiProject Highways, so I see no reason to delete it. Starfall2015 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In case this page was kept, Kindly move the page to B1228 road. This article includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Thank You and no opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do that as there is already a page there. Starfall2015 (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carter-Newton House

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

Article seems to function as an extended family history related to the Carter-Newton House, rather than an encyclopedic entry about a notable subject. It suffers from a near-complete lack of reliable, independent sources, making the vast majority of its content unverifiable (WP:V) and potentially original research (WP:OR) by a user whose name implies a relation to the owners. Article fails to establish the notability (WP:N) of the house, appearing more like a genealogical record (WP:NOTGENEALOGY). — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree it’s written like a poor novella, and is very weakly-sourced. But an 1840s house in the US is likely notable, and there is an indication it’s on the National Register. KJP1 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. — Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 13:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It could use more sourcing, but that in and of itself is not a hindrance. Please see Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Georgia (U.S. state) Properties on the NRHP are notable, all of them. The screening review process of such properties is repeated on several levels, beginning with the local reviews, city and perhaps even state level. The final review is the federal National Register of Historic Places, scrutinized in detail. And, yes, the initial NRHP review does often include historic details of the property and owners of the property. Some Wikipedians are better at putting the details together than others.The editor who wrote this article is no longer active on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most common U.S. place names

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

Majority of this is OR; I just don't see this 200s-era mega list actually meeting WP:NLIST. E_F⁵ 13:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent: What confuses me is how this article hasn't been deleted sooner, it does not really fit in with Wikipedia but if it has persisted 18+ years then maybe there is something I'm missing. SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yes a lot of articles stay for a long time even though they shouldn't have been here in the first place. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be deleted. I can see a potential version of this page where each entry contains additional context for why the name has popped up in so many places (i.e. history and origin of the name, notable foundings, etc.)

ThanatosApprentice (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those descriptions could be mentioned in the most popular entities of stated name...I don't see how this list is noteworthy on its own (WP:NLIST). I'm open to alternatives but I see this as a delete. – The Grid (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete this steaming heap of original research. I'd also point out that we've been going through and deleting many WP articles on places in the US which weren't actually towns, so there's a fair probability that if we are the source, it is inaccurate to some degreee or another anyway. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Komi Dje

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

No notability separate from Molodtsov alphabet, no content that isn't already covered in Komi alphabets. Janhrach (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Janhrach (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Komi alphabets#Molodtsov alphabet as an WP:ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or create an article specifically on the Letters of the Molodtsov alphabet [de], as in the German Wikipedia. The information in this article, including the name of the letter, the sound it represents, and the relevant computer codes, is not included in the section Molodtsov alphabet, and if it were added for this letter, it would need to be added for all the other letters in this alphabet, which would change the nature of the article (mainly historical, at present). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mastek

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like revenue targets, share price, profit/financial reporting, merger, demerger capacity expansion, overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the way the article is written feels like it’s mainly trying to promote or advertise something. Wikipedia:PROMO. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. – The Grid (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VISA Steel

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are primary and don’t cover subject Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRITE sources. Article only serves to promote company.- Imcdc Contact 05:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tega Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources, whether on or off Wikipedia, should be viewed with caution, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. The current page looks like a company advertisement copied onto Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom rationale and recent similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sources in article and business sites appear routine, but I found a couple of case studies that look like decent coverage. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and Sage Business Cases. Would these be considered independent, reliable sources? Eluchil404 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and mentioned sources do not seem to establish notability, though I cannot access them. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Von Grey

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

Never signed to a major label only self-released a handful of EPs and never a full album. The group did some tours as support act but never internationally as far as I can gather. Fails the notability guidelines for WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the page was created by a staff member of Red Light Management who had the band on their roster at the time. See this Billboard article where she is mentioned. Karst (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant advertising and COI issue. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: COI issues can be fixed, as well as the citation format. It has at least two good sources with SIGCOV (NPR and Billboard), plus they made appearances on Colbert and Conan shows (the links are broken but I double-checked they had). LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's also coverage in digitised newspapers, from 2012-2016 at least. I'll try to add some to the article. Other issues in the article can be addressed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to NPR and Billboard links, Atlanta Constitution, Asheville Citizen-Times, Gainesville Times, Arts ATL. Meets GNG if not NMUSIC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together with references in the article shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my opinion, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mezha (website)

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:N. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Ukraine. Mitte27 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having been deleted on other smaller Wikis aside (although: that IS a semi-decent marker on whether a subject is generally notable), I think this fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING, alongside WP:N

Madeline1805 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tian Boothe

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

Not a notable person. A lot of the sources are press releases and blogs, and the reliability of AllHipHop, although listed on WP:A/S based on one comment in 2008, has been questioned multiple times.[7][8][9] The article creator appears to have a history of creating articles with COI and paid editing issues. Frost 13:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Svartner (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been significantly expanded since the last "delete" !vote. Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Currie

(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]

Abrahadabra

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

The sourcing on this is quite weak - mostly derived from biographical work on Crowley or survey works on the Thelema new religious movement. The very few sources from outside this walled garden could easily be rolled into Abracadabra or Thelema without trouble. There's honestly about as much about Abrahadabra as needs to be said on the page about the Dimmu Borgir album. Simonm223 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Neutral [but will follow the discussion]. Lawrence Sutin is a notable multi-topic author, and his book on Crowley is a general biography used on many pages. Apparently this meditation technique is used by adherents of Thelema as a focus mantra, and so fits into the Wikipedia collection on this religion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That could be summarized in a sentence on another page. This is what I mean - the arguments for this having anywhere near enough material to serve a full article depend on leaning heavily into walled-garden texts from a religion that, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is characterized by attracting adherents from among the sorts of people who like writing books. A novel spelling of Abracadabra having significance to a single NRM is hardly a justification for a full article when this thimbleful of notable material could so easily fit into a parent article. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably. But Sutin is notable, and as far as I know not an adherent to Thelema, and his full biography of Crowley seems the main notable book on the life of this 20th century counter-culture figure. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy redirect‎ to Cruelty to animals. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Animal cruelty

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

Lacks sources. Contains WP:OR. Fails WP:GNG. Content is little more than a list of links to related pages. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cruelty to animals, possibly speedy. No reason to prolong this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Restore Redirect basically a WP:POVFORK of Cruelty to animals and an IP remove the redirect and created the "article". Lock it if recreated Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Crime. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sack of Amadiye

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

I can't find any academic sources to support this article. The article loosely relies on one source, a collection of letters written by a British merchanteer, Henry James Ross. Ross never mentions a year for this event and isn't even clear the raid occurred at Amadiya. The second source the "Missionary Herald" mostly just talks about how the local villages were terrified of Nestorians on page 53. Annwfwn (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This raid or sack became the cause of the Battle of Lezan (1834), and I therefore think that it deserves a Wikipedia page. I’ve seen some battle pages created by Kurds recently in which they only require one source in order to keep the page, I just think that it’s unfair how they get to do that. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Battle of Lezan is another article that relies heavily on Ross as a source. Relying on one source (especially when that source is a businessman writing letters to his sister) does not demonstrate significant coverage and significant coverage from reliable, independent sources is, to a large degree, the determining factor in whether or not articles are kept or deleted. Annwfwn (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Amedi: That an event is mentioned in two over-a-century-old sources cannot be the grounds for creating a separate article. There is no WP:SIGCOV. Aintabli (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Annwfwn rationale.Iranian112 (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dilan Sirwan

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

Refs either fail verification or otherwise fail WP:SIRS, so fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Iraq. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bligh

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and current sources do not help to qualify for WP:GNG. There are no sufficient independent sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject to establish the minimum GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use some further expansion, but Vancouver is a global city of the type whose city councillors are presumed to pass WP:NPOL #2, and the article already contains some content about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association — as I often point out in AFDs on municipal politicians, we need to see content about the person's political impact (specific things they did, specific effects their work had on the development of the city, etc.) rather than just "she exists and serves on the budget committee", and content already present and sourced in the article already fulfills exactly that higher test. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat As asked at Orr's AfD, NPOL does not cover municipal politicians or councillors whatsoever, was there a discussion somewhere that said councillors from "global cities" are presumptively notable under the same NPOL that doesn't give provisions for people of that status? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL #2 ("local political figures") absolutely covers municipal councillors: mayors and city councillors are literally who that criterion was written for. It's also a longstanding consensus, upheld by hundreds or even thousands of past AFD discussions on councillors in cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, Paris or Berlin, that city councillors in global cities are much more likely to cross the notability bar than city councillors in non-global cities — the article does still have to be more than just "So-and-so is a city councillor who exists, the end", but city councillors in global cities are very routinely kept so long as the article contains some useful and properly sourced context above and beyond "person who exists", as this one already does. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For records, I replied here as I prefer consolidating conversations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For records, I said above that, direct quote, "the article already contains some content about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association". That, right on its face, is exactly the kind of content that NPOL #2 is looking for. In what sense is there a functional distinction to be drawn between "coverage about her" and "coverage about things she did in office", in order to claim that coverage about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association fails to contribute NPOL-building notability? Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable and passes WP:NPOL. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Push from the Bush

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Australia. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this mention in a 1978 edition of The Canberra Times, but it's not quite SIGCOV in my view. I also found this mention in The Australian Library Journal and a few sentences about the journal in this issue of Labour History, but again neither are quite SIGCOV. I thought the discussion in this book looked promising, but like most of what I found, the relevant chapter turned out to be written by one of the journal's editors. It looks like The Push from the Bush was part of a larger project encompassing several journals and volumes called Australians: A Historical Library that was launched to mark the bicentennial, and that wider project is definitely notable, but we don't have an article about it that we could merge/redirect this to. I'll keep looking for additional sources, but at this point my !vote would be delete. MCE89 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kauvery Hospital

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like raising funds, performing successful surgeries etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of the hospital to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]

References

^ "Undiagnosed diabetes surging in Chennai, a study by Kauvery Hospital shows". BusinessLine. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "'Diabetes on Wheels', an initiative of Kauvery Hospital highlights gaps in early detection and calls for improved awareness". The Hindu. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "Kauvery Hospital releases data on the Diabetes Prevalence in Chennai through a cross sectional study". Expressnews. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "12-Year-Old Girl Undergoes Life-Saving Heart Surgery at Kauvery Hospital, Vadapalani". The Wire. 2 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ Standard, Business (25 March 2025). "Kauvery Hospital Honored with Prestigious CFBP Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices". Business News, Finance News, India News, Stock Markets BSE/NSE News, SENSEX, NIFTY, Personal Finance News. Retrieved 17 April 2025. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)
^ "Kauvery Hospital introduces Mako Robotic Joint Replacement system". ETHealthworld.com. 17 January 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ "Kauvery Hospital Successfully Conducts a grand ECG Masterclass workshop". The Wire. 8 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.
^ The Hindu Bureau (31 January 2025). "Kauvery Hospital receives Joint Commission International accreditation". The Hindu. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EClerx

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like quarter-wise revenue targets, share prices, share buybacks, domestic & overseas acquisitions etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dabuz

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

The article has used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE, but there are zero sigcov or lacking of reliable sources about this person. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Bull feature is ok, but I could also see a redirect to his current team. IgelRM (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG though it needs improvement and cleanup to be in an acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The unfortunate reality is that there just aren't many high quality sources covering esports. ESPN shuttered their coverage, the listings at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Esports are pretty small press, and many are region-specific or esport-specific to MOBAs. However, I think I cobbled together enough from the best sources that were available to pass the bar of WP:GNG. At the time that I wrote the article, they were a professionally signed player with major tournament wins, and considered one of the best players in the world in a notable esport by the community-accepted ranking system (If Red Bull is a RS and they devote extensive coverage to the Panda Global rankings, that should be enough). It's been a long time since I participated in AfD, so I'm out of practice and that's the best argument I can make at this time. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please base your !keep arguments on our policies and guidelines, along with the references supporting your claim that GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zackray

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

The article has used a lot of unreliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I did WP:BEFORE, but there are zero sigcov or lacking of reliable sources about this person. A source like this [10] [11] just states that he just won at The Big House 9 tournament, but that's it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm confused about how notable are the subject's wins in the world of gaming. Until we have context, I'm not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG, though it needs improvement and cleanup to be in an acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd suggest MimirIsSmart to base the !keep arguments on our policies and guidelines, along with references that support your claim. Carpet statements are WP:ILIKEIT. Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep winner of The Big House (tournament) among other notable tournaments. DCsansei (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And? Just because he won a single tournament? lol🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prime ministerial candidacy of Narendra Modi

Nomination: How a party decided their prime ministerial candidate is not notable and interesting topic at all. India has Parliamentary system in contrast to Presidential system. According to this logic, Prime Minister should be decided only after the election. This article doesn't demand a separate article. This article doesn't seem notable at all and may be formed due to ideological biasness. This article should either be deleted or be merged to Narendra Modi. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the info is simply repeated in Narendra Modi section titled Premiership campaigns. His campaigns on there own were not unique and only hold significance because he is the prime minister of India.

The event doesn't hold noteriaty outside of him so it should be found in Narendra Modi article (which a version already exists).

RCSCott91 (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Narendra Modi I support having separate article for political campaigns, especially for someone like Modi. Modi's article already has too much content and part of it should be split off into their own articles. This article would be a great split. It currently has about 20 sources, so there is substantial content here. I am only voting to merge because it needs more work for finish the split, and if the split is not finished, then we should have all the content in one place. I would change to "keep" if editors would check the main Modi article, move content from there to here, briefly summarize the concept, and link the main article to here while avoiding duplicate/WP:FORK content appearing in both places. I want to support keeping this but right now it is a WP:FORK. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:53, 16 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) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karbon (software)

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

Nonnotble unreferenced piece of software --Altenmann >talk 06:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calligra#Components. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:26, 20 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) 11:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calligra#Components: Does not seem to be independently notable, most mentions I could find were brief mentions in pages talking about the Calligra suite overall. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 20:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Nahar

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

Orignal creator of this article was blocked for WP:COI and WP:PROMO. This persons fails WP:GNG as well as WP:AUTHOR, due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also most of the sources on this article are not about him, hence checked carefully. It may be created for undisclosed payments because this article creator also created articles on his multiple books which are also nothing more than promotion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

The article on Vijay Nahar should be retained. There is sufficient coverage in a wide range of independent and reliable sources, satisfying Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline for authors, historians, and public figures. His work spans historical biographies, political commentary, and education-focused literature. Below is a list of significant sources that discuss his contributions:
=== Media & News Coverage: ===
=== Literary & Historical Commentary: ===
=== Library Catalogs & Book Listings: ===
----These references clearly demonstrate both the coverage and influence of Vijay Nahar’s work. While the Wikipedia article might benefit from improvements in structure, formatting, and inline citations, the subject himself meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. Therefore, the article should be improved, not dele Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all sources are not about this subject. Some are about maharana Pratap, or other are about modi or vasundra raje, also the #2 TOI article is a reliable source but that talks more about the book written by him. And please remind that online listing of books for purchase like Amazon doesn’t confer notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vijay Nahar is an Indian author and historian known for his biographical and historical works on notable Indian political figures and Rajput kings. His book Swarnim Bharat ke Swapndrishtha Narendra Modi has been referenced in multiple media outlets, including The Sunday Guardian, for its early commentary on Narendra Modi’s developmental vision and personal life aspects, including his marriage, which was highlighted during political discourse (The Sunday Guardian, Amar Ujala).

Nahar’s biography of Vasundhara Raje, Vasundhara Raje aur Viksit Rajasthan, is among the first dedicated publications on her political career and is noted in news profiles (Jansatta). His contributions to historical research include books on Samrat Bhoj Parmar, Mihir Bhoj, and Rao Akheraj Songara, which have been cited in literary platforms such as Sahitya Kunj and Sahitya Nama, and are among the few comprehensive modern works available on these historical figures (Sahitya Kunj, Udaipur Kiran).

In the context of Maharana Pratap, Nahar's writings have been used in regional discourse to support the view that Pratap was born in Pali, Rajasthan—challenging the traditionally cited location of Kumbhalgarh attributed to Colonel Tod (Bhaskar, Samvad). His contributions have also been recognized through awards and coverage in local media outlets, emphasizing his role in historical interpretation and education.

While online listings like Amazon do not independently confer notability, they help identify the range and accessibility of his publications. Furthermore, his books have been featured in school libraries in Rajasthan, according to a report by The Times of India (TOI). Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His book on narendra modi got media coverage like 1, 2. While the sunday guardian have only passing mention at last which is not enough. But if we talk about notability of this subject them i am still inclined toward deletion because of lack of Significant coverage about him in independent sources rather than sticking only on his modi book.TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
== Sources supporting notability ==
Lokmat Times – Photos of Gulab Kataria Ji – Features visuals and associations, including those connected to historian Vijay Nahar and other BJP figures.

Dainik Bhaskar – Pali historian Nahar got Bhandari Honors in Udaipur – Reports on a prestigious honor conferred to Vijay Nahar, recognizing his contributions to historical literature.

Sahitya Kunj – Samraat Bhoj Parmar Sameeksha – A critical review of Vijay Nahar’s historical writing on King Bhoj, hosted by a Hindi literary platform.

Jansatta – Vasundhara Raje’s political profile – Refers to authors including Nahar who’ve written about Rajasthan’s leadership and political figures.

Punjab Kesari – Maharana Pratap Jayanti – Covers public celebration of figures about whom Vijay Nahar has authored biographies.

News Puran – Death Anniversary of Maharana Pratap – Discusses cultural memory around Maharana Pratap, a key figure in Vijay Nahar’s historical works.

Samvad.in – It’s a lie that Maharana Pratap ate grass loaves – Offers myth-busting perspectives in history also reflected in Vijay Nahar’s revisionist narratives.

Jain Gazette – Freedom Fighter Mention – Reflects on themes of patriotism and freedom fighters that appear in Nahar’s works.

Sarkari Manthan – Maharana Pratap statue tribute – Reports community events inspired by figures researched by Vijay Nahar.

Sahitya Nama – Maharana Pratap articles – Discusses literary works on Maharana Pratap, including those by Nahar.

Udaipur Kiran – Book review: Pali Naresh Akheraj Songara – Reviews a book authored by Vijay Nahar, showcasing his reach in historical documentation.

Amar Ujala – Book on Modi and Jashodaben – Reports on Nahar’s controversial yet widely discussed book on Narendra Modi's early life.

Pathey Kan – Maharana Pratap death anniversary – Further evidence of Nahar’s engagement with historical storytelling in public discourse.

OneIndia Hindi – Book on Narendra Modi – A news piece discussing the content and release of Nahar’s book on Modi.

Hindi Kunj – Article on Bhoja – Provides literary context for historical kings such as Bhoja, also studied by Nahar.

Dainik Bhaskar (Mat) – Historical works in Pali – Features Vijay Nahar as a local historian contributing to regional identity.

Patrika – Maharana Pratap Jayanti, women’s role – Cultural event tied to figures researched and published by Nahar.

Public Live – Local event coverage – Mentions contributions of historians including Nahar in community awareness.

Dainik Bhaskar (Rohida) – Need for research on Rao Sinhaji Rathore – Features local historians including Nahar advocating for deeper research.

Surabhi Saloni – Historical commemoration article – Echoes Nahar’s themes of valor and historical justice.

Press Note – Educational event report – Discusses academic contributions by Vijay Nahar in educational forums.

Pathey Kan – Historical pieces on Pratap – Platform hosting several pieces aligned with Nahar's themes.

Pathey Kan (alternate) – Akbar vs Maharana Pratap – Reflects on contrasting historical figures often discussed in Vijay Nahar’s writings.

BJP Library Catalog – Vijay Nahar books in BJP Library – Lists Nahar’s books held in BJP-associated library catalog, confirming institutional presence.

Jagran Josh – List of books on PM Modi – Includes Vijay Nahar among notable authors writing about PM Modi.

Amazon – Vasundhara Raje Aur Viksit Rajasthan – One of Vijay Nahar’s published books on Rajasthan politics, available through major retailers.

Amazon – Haldighati Yuddha Vijayeta Maharana Pratap – Another key historical publication by Nahar, highlighting the Battle of Haldighati.

Sahitya Kunj – Vijay Nahar Author Profile – A central repository of Nahar’s literary contributions and publications.

Most of the sources cited to support the notability of Vijay Nahar are from Hindi-language newspapers and online publications. However, these are established and widely circulated media outlets in India, such as Dainik Bhaskar, Amar Ujala, Rajasthan Patrika, Punjab Kesari, Jansatta, and the Hindi edition of Times of India. These outlets are considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines for regional and vernacular coverage.

The references include interviews, book reviews, coverage of public recognitions and awards, listings of published works, and inclusion of his books in institutional libraries. Several sources document his contributions as a biographer of public figures like Narendra Modi, Vasundhara Raje, and Maharana Pratap. Many of these sources offer English summaries or have accessible translations. Gujjar.rudraa (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat none of these sources cover this person in depth, lack WP:SIGCOV also most of these sources are non reliable TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gujjar.rudraa have you edited only this person page since creation of your wiki account ?TheSlumPanda (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to hear from more editors willing to research the sources offered in the article and discussion. Would the two editors who have participated so far please take a step back and let other editors weigh in? Please let them comment without adding your opinions to their arguments. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz, again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Sked

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

Does not meet GNG, and does not meet WP:ANYBIO Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Uncle Bash007 (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probfly IT

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no indication of notability or reliable sources. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Technology. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 10:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Article is for a Bangladeshi international technology company. 1 A Article can be kept in their name as the most popular technology company.

I have mentioned some Bengali language news in this article. Looking at the sources, it seems like an article could be named after them.

Also, work is ongoing to improve this article. News sources will be used in addition to regular updates. Dv24mail (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Seems promotional and not notable per WP:NCORP.Somajyoti ✉ 17:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't come close to being notable, potential WP:A7 candidate. Yuvaank (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bedridden

(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 [12]. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band has this good coverage and this article mentions a Rock 'n' Roll City: Adelaide Babylon, which promises to elaborate on The Bedridden, but I don't have access to the book to confirm. It feels like a weak delete, but it still needs another good sources to keep the article. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Durig

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

Doesn't seem to have enough sources with SIGCOV. I found this with sparse coverage, this with moderate coverage, and this. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, United States of America, and Kansas. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is a ton of coverage in the Kansas City Star, see [13], [14], [15]. I think that's one element of an ideal three to establish GNG. Will see if I can find dig up more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Daily News also published a two page spread upon her 1,000th performance. I'm still probably at a Weak delete, but maybe someone else will find a bit more coverage. Maybve there is a world where this could be redirected to the musical's article, but her name isn't really there in any substantial way right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rawanduz Revolt

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

Like all articles created by this editor (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rawandiz), this one seems to fabricate pseudohistory from some sources which mention something vaguely related at best, but without any sources about the actual subject. Fram (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, but I want to clarify that all the sources used in the article do mention that Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz launched a revolt, and they describe it as a successive or multi-phase conflict involving resistance against Ottoman authority. While the event may not always be labeled in English-language sources as the “Rawanduz Revolt,” that does not mean it did not happen or that it lacks historical basis.

This revolt is well known among the Kurdish people and is documented in several academic and regional sources—what may appear “vague” in English sources is more clearly established in local or specialized historical literature. The purpose of the article is not to invent history, but to present events that are verifiable through multiple references, even if the naming conventions differ.

I believe that instead of deletion, the article could benefit from improving the sourcing format, adding inline citations, and possibly clarifying the terminology used, but dismissing it outright undermines a notable episode of Kurdish-Ottoman relations. MHD1234567890 (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[16] mentions Rawanduz once, not in the context of a revolt though. You use this blog, an unreliable source, throughout the article, e.g. to claim 70,000 death in a massacre. The blog post mentions 10,000. If there are no sources which label it the "Rawanduz Revolt", then it is WP:OR to invent such a title for it, whatever "it" is. Fram (talk) 10:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term Rawanduz (also spelled Rawandooz, Rawandiz, Rowanduz, or Ravandooz) refers not only to the region but also to the ruling family of Muhammad Pasha, who is central to this historical episode. The title Rawanduz Revolt is a logical and concise way to refer to this complex series of events, even if some sources describe it under different terms like the Soran Revolt. Regardless of the title, all the sources converge on the fact that a major revolt led by Muhammad Pasha took place, and each of them describes various aspects—be it military campaigns, conquests, or resistance against Ottoman authority.

If needed, I can provide additional reliable sources that explicitly refer to his revolt or rebellion. Regarding the Yazidi massacre, the blog cited contains a testimony, and that figure (70,000) is in fact echoed in multiple other sources—not just the blog. Even a quick check across Yazidi history sources shows the recurrence of this same number.

The use of this terminology is not original research but an editorial decision to group well-documented historical events under a coherent and searchable title. MHD1234567890 (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the name Muhammad Pasha, referring specifically to Mir Muhammad Pasha of Soran, appears over 60 times in the first source you referenced, more than 20 times in A People Without a State by Michael Eppel, and over 60 times again in The Kurdish National Movement by Wadie Jwaideh. And these are only three of the many scholarly sources available. To downplay this revolt as “minor” is to overlook the substantial amount of academic attention dedicated to Muhammad Pasha’s campaigns and the broader context of Kurdish resistance during this period. His revolt was not an isolated or trivial episode—it was a major confrontation with both Ottoman and regional powers, well documented through various military actions, regional expansions, and social upheaval. The article reflects this historical significance. MHD1234567890 (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Shaneapickle (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is attempting to describe Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz's conquests. Convenient the article stops two years before the Ottoman Empire defeated Muhammad Pasha and he was traipsed off to Constantinople to meet with the Sultan and mysteriously "disappeared" on his way home. There are plenty of scholarly works on Muhammad Pasha's life and military conquests but the conflict with this article - it's generally agreed that his conquests, and eventual capture and disappearance signaled the death of the Soran Emirate

My sources:

pages 49-51^[1]
and pages 55-60 here ^[2]

Annwfwn (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Mardin

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

Unverifiable, from the same editor who gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Rawandiz with the same issues.

This is a battle in 1833, but the source doesn't mention 1833 or Mardin[17]. I can't find any evidence for this battle (there was some action around Mardin in this period, but nothing to actually support this specific event). Fram (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I agree that there may be some ambiguity regarding the exact date and the name of the battle. However, the sources I included clearly indicate that Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz captured Mardin from Ottoman control during his western campaign. While the exact year 1833 may not be directly stated in every source, it is a reasonable approximation based on the timeline of his military actions, particularly following his operations in 1832.

The article does not attempt to fabricate an event but rather to document a historical moment that is mentioned briefly in the context of his broader campaign. Given that, I believe the article can be improved with clarification and attribution, rather than deletion. I’m open to revising the title or content to better reflect the source material, such as renaming it to Capture of Mardin (1830s) or merging it into the article on Muhammad Pasha’s military campaigns if that’s more appropriate. MHD1234567890 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You just need to stop creating such fabrications, or you will be forced to. Your main source is this, which mentions Mardin 6 times, none of them in relation to a battle (page 134 comes the closest, but doesn't support this article either). The force of 20,000 people is mentioned once in 1838, as a force of Khan Mahmud, so unrelated to this article. Fram (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the Mardin city page itself, it has a mention of this battle, but its only just one mention, and the dates dont even match up on the grand vizier page as well, it says 1835, not 1833. Shaneapickle (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As mentioned above, there are obvious verifiability issues with some references directly failing verification, which is further complicated by the total lack of page numbers. This appears to be a recurring issue given this is not the first article created by MHD1234567890 to be nominated for deletion. Moreover, in their own words, the battle is mentioned briefly in the context of [the] broader campaign. They appear to be unaware of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and policies: WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:NEVENT. A brief mention is not "significant coverage" or a demonstration of an event's significance. I was unable to find any in-depth sources that provide significant coverage of the event. Aintabli (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I don’t see any in-depth covering reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mi.Mu Gloves

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

lacks significant independent, reliable sources that demonstrate notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. Most coverage appears to come from promotional or affiliated sources Xrimonciam (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Guardian, CNN, TechCrunch, BBC Science Focus, La Vanguardia... Once again, an LLM-generated nomination came with no WP:BEFORE. MarioGom (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Villilä studios

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

The article not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies or studios. Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kopnakolicti (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it passes WP:ORGDEPTH, but there's quite some news coverage from Finnish media (e.g. Yle). I would suggest searching for "Villilä Studiot". MarioGom (talk) 17:29, 19 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 08:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grits & Eggs (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any sources on a WP:BEFORE besides social media, no indication that it meets WP:GNG. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Entertainment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find any reliable coverage (such as reviews) that would establish notability Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wasn't able to find any reviews or coverage of the podcast in reliable sources either, and the awards that it was nominated for do not appear to be notable ones. MCE89 (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kottikulam

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

This Indian town doesn't really have any notability, other than having a train station in it. Article only really has a name and a non-absolute location (only relative to other areas). Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 07:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but at worst, redirect to Kotikulam railway station Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SYSGO

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

fails notability guidelines, see specifically WP:NCORP. businesses have no inherent notability and require significant coverage in reliable sources. a WP:BEFORE has failed to find such necessary coverage. note: was previously prodded by me before being deprodded here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thales Group, of which it is a subsidiary. Jahaza (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Selective merge actually. Nothing more than a sentence to state what they do and that they are a subsidiary. This reference could be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PikeOS

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

fails notability guidelines, see specifically WP:PRODUCT. a WP:BEFORE failed to return significant coverage in reliable sources. note: was previously prodded by me before being deprodded here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah Woh Main

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

This song doesn't appear to meet any of the relatively strict criteria of WP:NSONG, there is already some information about this song on her page so I don't think there is reason to merge the page. You can try to convince me of a redirect but I don't think this song is big enough for that to even be considered. Moritoriko (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and India. Moritoriko (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A redirect most certainly would be an WP:ATD "if" there is information about it at the target. It is listed at Shreya Ghoshal filmography which would be an appropriate place to redirect. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ELinOS

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

fails notability guidelines, see specifically WP:PRODUCT. a WP:BEFORE failed to return significant coverage in reliable sources. note: was previously prodded by me before being deprodded here. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I could only find this detailed bullet-point description from a Taylor & Francis imprint and a paragraph on its exclusive, bundled bootloader from O'Reilly Media. I think that fails notability by a wee bit as it isn't enough content to write about and the latter is arguably a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marlo Anderson

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

This article appears promotional and fails to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. The subject is mainly known for creating "National Day Calendar," and the references are mostly primary or light news coverage. WikiDogebama (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, Technology, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found a few profiles of him here here, and here, kinda here as well, and an article here, and an interview/article in Slate. The org has a few profiles that I think also contribute to his notability (as they have fairly significant coverage of him/his work), especially this one by the Associated Press, the WSJ, CBS News, The Atlantic. I can't get past the paywall, but also maybe Ad Age. In sum, this is quite a bit of coverage, of Anderson and of his organization, and I think it adds up to put him over GNG (Alternatively, a case could probably be made for moving this article to National Day Calendar itself). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on moving this to an article of National Day Calendar instead. WikiDogebama (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Move to National Day Calendar as most of the sources (of which there are quite alot) seem to be interested primarily in the site, with most only touching on Anderson in passing. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gia Vicari

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

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for sports and athletics.
This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral.
The major contributor to this article, namely Giavv23 (talk · contribs), appears to have a close connection with its subject. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Football, Australia, and United States of America. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 06:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the Jets are a top-level team in Australia, there's no current news sources about Vicari's activity or presence. Weakly held opinion, and I would love to see someone find more sources and buff this up. Ivey (talk)
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Watle

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

Biography of non-notable individual. Has been tagged as potentially failing to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline since June 2013. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Transportation, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:NBIO, and my WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing useful. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Vasko

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

I could not find any WP:SIGCOV on this player in any relevant language. Seems, then, to fail WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article has been tagged for notability issues for two years. On Ukrainian Wikipedia, I found one secondary source which is a passing mention in match report. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish ritual baths in Colorado

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

Fails WP:NLIST. References are primary, and no sources appear to discuss this specific grouping. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Lists, and Colorado. ~ A412 ^talk! 04:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the mikvahs themselves are notable (they dont even have their own pages in Wikipedia), so why include them in a list? Usually, lists are here on Wikipedia to direct us to articles that fulfill the criteria of the list. It doesn't even do that. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Longhornsg (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Ojeda (footballer, born 1997)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Argentina. Joeykai (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somewhat difficult to search because of the other Ojeda, but I don’t believe I can find any substantive coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt (gamer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. The interviews sourced in the article at present are by reliable sources, but this is arguably routine seasonal coverage. This player did not achieve any significant results during his career; when he was in a tier-one league, his team never made top-three, peaking at fourth place (semifinals). Yue🌙 01:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and United States of America. Yue🌙 01:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only demonstrated notability is joining a tier-one league without significant results so there isn't a lot of information about him that can be documented. So many gamers named Matt around the world and this guy gets to be considered the definitive Matt gamer, if only he had a more significant career. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Matt Elento ("Matt") competed in the NA LCS, a fully professional league, and has reliable, independent coverage from ESPN, invenglobal.com, tsn.ca, Polygon, DBLTAP, thenextweb.com etc. Goodboyjj (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I contend, as I did in previous discussions of other LCS players, that the coverage presented is routine and not in-depth. There are around 300 players who have competed in the LCS, most of whom have some routine coverage (e.g. rosters swaps, season interviews) by esports and esports-adjacent outlets. Not all these players deserve an article though; most of have never made it to the top-three, many not even to playoffs, and most have never won individual honours either (e.g. MVP, all-pro team, rookie of the split, etc.)

My argument is therefore:

Yue🌙 16:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Bob's Wonderland

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

Non-notable restaurant (formerly a ShowBizz pizza location, now independent) that does not appear to have any SIGCOV outside of local media profiles. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, and West Virginia. nf utvol (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Local media profiles" appears to be an inaccurate description. Several of the cited sources are news stories, not profiles, and at least two of the news sources are non-local: USA Today is a national news source, and while WOAY-TV is from West Virginia, Oak Hill, West Virginia isn't local—I live just a few miles from the restaurant, though I've never been there, and we've never gotten WOAY in this area; our local ABC affiliate is WCHS-TV. Oak Hill isn't part of the local area; it's more than 90 miles away. The coverage looks like what you would expect for a local attraction, and is more than you'd see for some that meet the minimum standards for notability. The fact that it was once part of a chain—many years ago, apparently—does not make it non-notable as an independently-operated restaurant with a distinctive identity. P Aculeius (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today article doesn't mention Billy Bob's Wonderland at all. I think the WOAY and WCHS coverage still would fall under local interest stories. The DCist article is the only one that really would satisfy non-local coverage, and I am not sure that passes the reliable sources test. nf utvol (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about USA Today. Perhaps this could be solved by merging into Showbiz Pizza. The fate of restaurants that "divorced" from the chain but still maintained the basic concepts and show seem relevant, and since the parent article has major sources, there shouldn't be any issue with using local sources to describe the fate of one such restaurant in one or two short paragraphs. If others are documentable, they can be added too, and a section containing them could be trimmed accordingly, but for now I think some of this content could go there. P Aculeius (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vennello Hai Hai

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

Fails WP:FILM, no reliable reviews in Telugu or English [18] [19]. No evidence that the dubbed version was ever released other than the soundtrack [20]. For context, Ajmal's previous Telugu film as a lead, Prabhanjanam (2014), lacks an article due to lack of reliable sources. Redirect to Avunu Valliddaru Ista Paddaru!#Soundtrack. DareshMohan (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malladi Venkata Krishna Murthy: (author of the freely adapted work) or to Avunu Valliddaru Ista Paddaru!, or to List of Telugu films of 2016, as WP:ATD, and merge what can be. -Mushy Yank. 08:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure what could be merged tbh. If someone finds a redirect appropriate so be it. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two poor non independent sources with actor Ajmal. No significant coverage on the film. No multiple critical reviews on the film. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Occupancy

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

Not a dictionary. Qwirkle (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as DICTDEF. Carrite (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Laun chba ller 02:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I feel that the article is not entirely a dictionary definition and that there is room for encyclopedic expansion, particularly in the "building codes" section. However, the article in its current state is not well sourced or especially useful. If this is deleted, it should be without prejudice towards a better encyclopedic article on the topic existing in the future. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but no prejudice to draftify. When I initially saw the page, I thought that it could be kept. Turned out it is primarily about the word "occupancy" rather than about the concept of occupancy, especially with the section "other meanings". But I think it has the potential to be a better article, it just needs time.

Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 05:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was working on a draft about the concept of vacant buildings (they have a lot of unique challenges like abandonment, squatting, reuse, pest control) that I was probably going to include in this article instead. Usually we don't delete articles just because they're bad but have the potential to be better (there's WP:TNT but I don't think it's at that level of unsaveable). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehek Cooke

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

Doesn't have enough reliable sources or they are mainly mentions, social media and not deep coverage about the subject. Darkm777 (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Darkm777 (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Delhi, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any in-depth coverage that would establish gng, outside of a couple WP:ROUTINE articles from when she was considered to be Vance's replacement and when she ran for office in 2020. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, just passing mentions and a few lines in various sources about her candidacies for political office, which do not count towards WP:NPOL and aren't enough for WP:GNG. This interview in Columbus Monthly has a few sentences about her but still not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Nnev66 (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qaeda guest houses, Faisalabad

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

Following the successful Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qaeda safe houses, Kabul, nominating related articles that fails the same criteria. Random hodgepodge of references to random locations. Fails WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and utterly lacks focused WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Longhornsg (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Pakistan, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original research. Much of the sourcing is from the files of the US Department of Defense. User Geo Swan who created these, is permanently banned by the community, from editing the English Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 03:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Gutman

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR per WP:BEFORE. Longhornsg (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, United States of America, and Michigan. Longhornsg (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Law, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an article about one of her books [21], confirmed on the second reference under the External Links section in the article. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: This [22] in Kirkus Reviews. I suppose two reviews are enough for AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Newspapers.com also turns up a number of reviews in American newspapers, e.g. of her first book, Equivocal Death: [23], [24], [25], [26] (2 pages); and the second The Anniversary: [27], [28], , [29], [30], [31], [32]. There's also a few more profile-y articles from around when the books came out that would enable the fleshing out of a true article, namely [33] (two pages, I didn't clip the second), and [34], [35], [36]. Mostly small papers, but all around the country. I think NAUTHOR (and GNG) is met here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaluki Paul Mutuku

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

Upon search, subject doesn't seem to be notable as far as reliable, secondary sources. Not to mention, a lot of the sources currently mentioned in the article about the subject are either primary, or seem to be promotional/unreliable sources. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Environment, Africa, and Kenya. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lean Keep~~: this source seems to be a reliable secondary source but I am not sure how in-depth it is. And it does mention how it is a problem that 'western' media in general are bad at covering climate activists from other parts of the world. Not saying this is a WP:Ignore All Rules moment but worth keeping under consideration. I have never seen the Trice Edney Newswire or Global Information Network before so I don't know how reliable of a source they are, but they give us this. If these can be counted enough for notability then I think we are good. (And they are spread across time too which I think is a bonus) Moritoriko (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hopeful, but I don't think hope is good enough for WP:GNG

Comment. @Moritoriko - the first source that you mentioned is not WP:SIGCOV, rather a passing mention. The second source that you mentioned is not likely reliable or independent since it seems to be a press release (TriceEdneyWire.com).WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WormEater13 Why do you think it is a press release? Honestly I would agree that it is a passing mention but I don't see any indication it is a press release. Moritoriko (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko - I don't think the first source is a press release, but I do strongly believe it is a passing mention. As for the second source, it definitely does seem like a press release. If you look at all other articles, it makes me think that the second source significantly republishes/publishes press releases without distinguishing them as such. For example, take a look at this page and this page. The New Pittsburgh Courier does seem to have articles by its own writers, but it still makes me also question the overall reliability of this source, given the significant percentage of PR articles on the site that aren't adequately distinguished. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WormEater13 Sorry I wasn't clear. I was only talking about the second source. A newswire is a service that writes articles and then newspapers publish them, like Reuters or the Associated Press, I think this is just a niche less well known one. Of course it (the second source) being a passing mention means that it perhaps doesn't matter too much. Moritoriko (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Moritoriko - That is correct, my apologies for overlooking it. You're right about the fact that it doesn't even count towards WP:GNG due to not being WP:SIGCOV. The question we're trying to answer is regarding whether the source is primary/not reliable, but I don't think it would matter too much either given that there is practically no source about the subject that counts towards WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caracalla's campaigns of 214–216

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

This article is not supported by the sources it caontains, even the most reliable source here, The Cambridge ancient history vol 12, mentions only one campaign, in 217.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Wikaviani rationale.Iranian112 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://archives1.sundayobserver.lk/search/node/nadeeka%20guruge

[2] ttps://sltc.ac.lk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Music-Brochure-2023-OCT-10.pdf

[3] ttps://www.ugc.ac.lk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=37&lang=en

[y588-4] "Undiagnosed diabetes surging in Chennai, a study by Kauvery Hospital shows". BusinessLine. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[l629-5] "'Diabetes on Wheels', an initiative of Kauvery Hospital highlights gaps in early detection and calls for improved awareness". The Hindu. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[i488-6] "Kauvery Hospital releases data on the Diabetes Prevalence in Chennai through a cross sectional study". Expressnews. 16 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[t901-7] "12-Year-Old Girl Undergoes Life-Saving Heart Surgery at Kauvery Hospital, Vadapalani". The Wire. 2 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[b612-8] Standard, Business (25 March 2025). "Kauvery Hospital Honored with Prestigious CFBP Jamnalal Bajaj Award for Fair Business Practices". Business News, Finance News, India News, Stock Markets BSE/NSE News, SENSEX, NIFTY, Personal Finance News. Retrieved 17 April 2025. {{cite web}}: |first= has generic name (help)

[i773-9] "Kauvery Hospital introduces Mako Robotic Joint Replacement system". ETHealthworld.com. 17 January 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[i743-10] "Kauvery Hospital Successfully Conducts a grand ECG Masterclass workshop". The Wire. 8 April 2025. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[j836-11] The Hindu Bureau (31 January 2025). "Kauvery Hospital receives Joint Commission International accreditation". The Hindu. Retrieved 17 April 2025.

[12] ttps://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=TN4fEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=muhammad+pasha+of+rawanduz&ots=ytYHQzxNRC&sig=Of9BngItdJKqTuuwAfRChN0KBzM#v=onepage&q&f=false

[13] ttps://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FCbspX-dGPYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=muhammad+pasha+of+rawanduz&ots=RpL4kQVs3I&sig=fLrFGCQRzkuMV-NwCoRQ2JDlJj8#v=onepage&q&f=false

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[2]