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 23	April 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sack of Azekh

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

Contains WP:OR, the book "The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development" contradicts this page, stating on page 59:

[Muhammad Pasha] laid siege to Azikh but failed to take it, owing in part to the inhabitants' fierce resistance and in part to disturbing developments at 'Amadiya. He was forced to relinquish his conquests in this region and to hurry back to the rebellious town, where the former ruler Sa'id Pasha, supported by a popular uprising, had deposed Musa Pasha and compelled him to flee. ^[1]

Annwfwn (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is yet another instance from a series of problematic creations by the same editor. While the presence of OR is concerning, it wouldn't be the rationale for deletion. The main problem here is that there is no significant coverage to merit a separate article. This should have been covered by Muhammad Pasha of Rawanduz instead. Aintabli (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any in-depth secondary reliable sources but no prejudice to keeping or merging if any editor is able to find those sources. Aintabli (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Sricsi (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked at the sources on the song's page, and I think that this song is the subject of enough sources to meet WP:NSONG. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 04:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, basically per Opm581. BD2412 T 02:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The track doesn't meet WP:NSONGS, no chart performance either. Kirtap92 (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Kirtap92. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiempo Sin Verte

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

No notability, fails WP:NSONG. Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it not a notable song with much coverage aside from promotions. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Patrol. Lack of interest would suggest no consensus, but the arguments raised are both convincing and policy-compliant. Recommend closure over relisting. Spartathenian (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's with these AFD Patrol comments? Let's leave the closing decisions to the closers, and keep the discussion on track. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sirfurboy. Please see WP:AfD Patrol. The object of patrolling is to ensure discussions are "on track" via policy compliance. Furthermore, any editor can make a closure recommendation, and the point of my "closure over relisting" comment was that this case, having just reached its seven-day cut-off, might have been relisted without due consideration of the two arguments raised. Relisting should be avoided, if possible, because of the weight it adds to current day nomination pages. Since my recommendation, case status was significantly altered by Ingratis, whose argument is valid, and so Explicit had to relist, correctly in my view. Spartathenian (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. That project is long inactive, but the "what to do" section is all good practice and to be encouraged. When I do those things, I just bold the word comment, because that is what I am doing. However, note that none of the six suggestions involve providing a recommendation to the closer. We generally let closers arrive at their own independent assessment based on the discussion. Closers usually have a lot of experience at AFD they can rely on, but if you want to steer them at all, just bold a !vote and explain why you lean that way. Nevertheless, by all means do comment to try to keep discussions focussed on policy and guidance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've taken that on board, and am using comment now. I didn't know the patrol is inactive, though. Thanks and best wishes. Spartathenian (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the references given, but if adjudged non-notable then Redirect to album per WP:NSONG. Ingratis (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Las Mujeres Ya No Lloran. The song is not independently notable, although the Album appears to be. GNG requires significant coverage of the song in secondary and independent reliable sources. We do not have that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of refs in independent sources dealing specifically with the song rather than with the whole album, which suggests SIGCOV, but as said I'd not be unhappy with a redirect to the album. Ingratis (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Gruber

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

Footballer that fails WP:GNG, no sources beyond profiles and stats from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NOTSTATS Fails WP:NSPORTS. The notability criteria is more than a pseudo biography and not a resume. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This guy played for fair sized clubs including Lech Poznań and a lot of football at that, he played at the top of his game and played European games. Playing football is not a NOTSTATS issue. I don't know how much media coverage he had in the countries he played for at the time, but I am betting on newspapers here. WP:OFFLINESOURCES. Yes there does seem to be coverage issue, but the internet at this time, is not at the same level on the region, it was still being built up in Serbia at that time. It doesn't help the fact he played during a time of strong geo-political issues in the region. So that might negate searches. I am going to assume good faith here for my weak keep. Govvy (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Govvy Боки 💬 📝 06:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Even though he played in smaller centers, he had spells at important clubs in those places, didn't he really find any WP:SIGCOV? Svartner (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Patrol. While there is no clear consensus, the evident lack of SIGCOV is a strong policy-compliant argument. Spartathenian (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DDPF

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

Tagged for speedy deletion by Jules* with the reason:

original research / not verifiable. Sources do not say that DDPF is a terrorist group, we don't even know if a such group really exists (sources only talks about a Telegram group and police is not sure of anything about it. See Le Monde

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, the related page on attacks carried by this group shows a substantial number of references. First, I want to emphasize that Jules* removed the mention of anarchism as the main lead pursued by French authorities—even though this claim is backed by two sources in the specific article about the attacks. A simple Google search would have confirmed this. Here are the two articles: (1) (2).

Regarding DDPF, the user selectively picked sources and provided only one, Le Monde, which questions whether the attacks are coordinated and examines the links between the Telegram channel claiming responsibility (and providing close-up images/videos of the attacks—clearly from people with direct access I should say) and the actual assaults. Let me clarify: I extensively research terrorism in general and anarchist terrorism in particular, and such practices are entirely typical of 21st-century terrorist groups. The most obvious example that comes to mind is Al-Qaeda or ISIS’s online recruitment and incitement campaigns during the 2000s and 2010s. Whenever radicalized individuals carry out attacks and claim them in the group’s name, they are considered part of it—which is logical, as this is one of the primary forms of early-21st-century terrorism, sometimes overlapping with lone-wolf attacks but not always. Here, the only precise witness accounts describe multiple assailants (e.g., people in a car or hooded figures setting fire to targets)—clearly not individual acts. So, as I told Jules*, I don’t see why, even if the investigation eventually concludes (which is possible) that this isn’t an anarchist group, we couldn’t mention it as the main lead as it is the main lead so far.

The reality is that most sources do refer to it as a group—especially since the terrorist group and the Telegram channel share the same name. We’re likely dealing with a hardcore nucleus that carried out some attacks and is now trying to incite others (e.g., people linked to prisons—the only arrested suspect so far is a former inmate) to follow suit. This is a classic strategy of modern terrorism (and not even just modern—terrorism in general).

As for the claim that the Telegram channel is separate from the group (which they changed in the introduction also), frankly, I think the user deliberately cherry-picked an isolated this source. Plenty of others clearly treat it as a group—here’s a sample.(3)(4)(5)(6 in English)

Some speak of it as a 'movement', such as Le Figaro (6)

In fact, the position of the Guardian (7) describing it as a group based on the Telegram channel to communicate (meaning their main modus operandi known so far is to use that homonymous channel to coordinate, incite and mediatize their actions) seems to be the fairest one, and probably where the inquiry will go towards, but don't know yet.

But in any case, I don't see why she would delete the page ; either it's a group, a movement or a slogan anti-prison if it's ultimately decided (which is very dubious and unprobable) ; in any case it would be usable here and not a non-deserving subject. Look at the amount of sources we are discussing the subject while it's still going on, I feel like it kinda shows that it's a big subject, and I mean it's a current event, so the page will follow it's usual temporality and follow the sources as they come through ; deleting seems clearly wrong regarding the amount of sources avalaible online. Also I should note that Jules* is admin on the FR:WP and I won't repeat the accusations I made against them in the talk page of DDPF but the FR:WP admin team deleted this page for 'Manifest vandalism' while I was sleeping without opening a single discussion on it - and I feel very attacked by this categorization of what I did, which is clearly not vandalism but instead trying to do subjects I like, and you know I like terrorism-related subjects since I did hundred of pages regarding that (in this account and this one, so as not to fool anyone) ; I spent time trying to improve the FR:WP on that matter, and I still engage there while I'm being harassed, etc and this is how they act and how they categorize my edits. Do you really think it's 'Manifest vandalism' ? I feel like it was maybe rushed, but you know me, you say it to me on my talk page and I add sources and I'm a cyclical dude, I would have come back to the page to add sources over time, like I always do, Jules*. Anyways, yes, that's it, delete it if you want but it's not deserved by the amount of sources and it's more of a revealer of the atmosphere I feel like against me on FR:WP, where everyone is against me and hates my guts, basically. But it's probably deserved, hey, strange that in EN:WP it's not the same at all. Aristoxène (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History, or God, or human consciousness or whatever people believe in will judge. I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues. Since then, it's only hostility and them hating my guts and I'm the worst dude ever. So I'm sorry to feel that this is in the same process but I feel it's the same dynamic ; and it's personal ok but the attacks seem personal too and often by the same people. Aristoxène (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After some thinking, I should say that I don't have the whole time of the world, so like I need to improve Rosalie Soubère and other pages for a project and do stuff IRL, so I'm sorry but I will drop this issue, do what you want with the page, it should stay, but I won't engage anymore with it or any related subjects, either here or in the FR:WP, it's ok, they will do better. I remove them from my Watchlist and I mute Jules* and I thank you all for the choice you will make, I'm sure it will be the right one. I won't be harassed like this, it's just work I did that goes into the bin and me not having the satisfaction of shaping the page I liked creating as it goes forward and we learn more about it, RIP. Aristoxène (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I just feel like I'm being systematically attacked since I criticized rape culture there and harassment targetting me and the feminist project and their administration management of the issues." This has nothing to do with the current matter: I never met you on fr-wp before and did not even know you name until today. And it has everything to with you writing things that are not in sources. — Jules* ^talk 22:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: DDPF is obviously notable, there are dozens of reliable sources about it. Also, it definitely exist, people are literally commiting terror attacks in France in the name of this group and spray painting its name on the walls. See [1] for proof WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Terrorism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. Regardless of what constitutes the DDPF, the reliable sources above only appear to discuss the group in relation to these attacks, not as independently notable. It would be best, then, to cover DDPF in the context of the attacks, and if there are additional sources about the DDPF in isolation (separate from the attacks) in the future, it can always split out to an independent article in summary style. Also noting that most sources unfurl the acronym as "Défense des droits des prisonniers français" not just "Droit des prisonniers français". And as a side note about personal attacks, every language Wikipedia is administered differently, but bringing an article to AfD discussion is foremost an opportunity to talk about the sources for the subject so I'd try not to view it as a personal judgment on the article's editors. czar 01:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2025 French prison attacks. It doesn't appear that the Telegram group is independently notable as a standalone topic outside the context of the prison attacks. Including this content in the larger article improves the encyclopedic coverage of both. Longhornsg (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This acronym may refer to a terrorist group or to an action by the French far left against prisons. The action is under investigation and will probably be followed up in the near future. Let's keep a trace of it, even if it's a pity that it has been removed from wiki:fr, not by the community but by the sole will of its administrators. Sg7438 (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 French prison attacks. Coverage is limited to mentions in relation to the 2025 French prison attacks. No standalone notability demonstrated or argued in this discussion. Yue🌙 07:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2025 French prison attacks, per above. Whether or not this group exists, it's pretty clear that it is not independently notable outside of the prison attacks being committed. Per WP:NORG, I don't think there's any need for this to be a separate article, at least not based on the current coverage in sources. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 French prison attacks. Same concerns as above, yet not sure anything is missing at the target. It all looks very similar to me. We should respect our merge team's limited people and time resources. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to 2025 French prison attacks. The information currently provided does not show that DDPF is more than just a telegram group. Whether it is the name of a more organized (or even anarchical) movement or just a political statement, it is still only notable as part of the events at the French prisons. Bkissin (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colts–Jaguars rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to have coverage from sources discussing a rivalry, and as such WP:NRIVALRY is not met. Article was recreated after being deleted in a earlier deletion discussion and while this version has more sourcing, it still does not have sources to meet the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, Florida, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete No sources seem to cover the rivalry in-depth. The sheer number of routine coverage articles seems like a WP:REFBOMB, so it's difficult to say for sure whether all 100+ sources have no significant coverage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clear pass of WP:NRIVALRY from my perspective. As much as I've supported getting rid of a number of rivalry articles, I can't fathom deleting one about two division rivals who have played each other twice a year for 23 years. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NRIVALRY requires GNG level coverage discussing the rivalry in-depth. Which sources do you thing cover this series as a rivalry? Let'srun (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on NFL rivalries, but a quick search in Newspapers.com reveals many sources discussing the pairing as a rivalry. E.g., (1) "Colts, Jaguars renew rivalry", (2) "Colts-Jaguars South rivalry getting intense" (part 1/part 2), (3) "Rivalry has evolved quickly", (4) "this series has emerged as the division's best rivalry", (5) "Young rivalry gets stirred up", (6) "Colts' 'rivalry' fires up Jags" - early article discussing factors (part 1/part 2), (7) "There's no love lost: Plenty of bad blood between rivals Colts, Jaguars". Why doesn't such extensive coverage reporting on the rivalry show that there is or was a rivalry? Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Ragusa

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Anding

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage: PennLive, Philly Inquirer, Patch.com. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with e.g. PennLive, which was 700 words on him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:03, 25 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. Potential problems with WP:NPOV can be addressed in the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion assesses the notability of the subject, rather than the quality of the article. In the nomination, it is unclear why a Psychology Today source directly about the subject is a problem rather than demonstrating notability. !Votes to speedy keep note that the cited sources meet WP:GNG and have been scrutinized previously during the DYK process. Editors also note the nomination may "be a spillover" from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harald Malmgren (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological perspectives on UFO belief

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

I propose that Psychological perspectives on UFO belief be deleted, or at minimum merged into existing articles due to it failing WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:MERGE:

Neutrality violations (WP:NPOV / WP:FRINGE)

Emphasizes psychological “pathology” (hallucinations, schizotypy, delusions, antipsychotic treatment) while omitting major peer-reviewed research showing abductees to be psychologically normal (Ring, McNally, Mack).
Alternative or sympathetic viewpoints appear only to be immediately rebutted (e.g. John E. Mack’s work is framed as “un-scholarly” without noting Harvard’s support for his academic freedom).

Undue weight on fringe/non-scholarly sources (WP:UNDUE / WP:RS)

Reliance on popular-press opinion pieces and self-published works: Simon ’84 in _Skeptical Inquirer_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief#cite_note-16), Salon blog (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief#cite_note-salon-2), _Psychology Today_, _The Conversation_, a fringe UFO journal.
Key lead claims (e.g. “experiencers simply have overactive imaginations”) are unsourced or cite low-quality materials.

Content redundancy (WP:MERGE)

All core material (fantasy-prone personality, cognitive biases, case studies) already covered more neutrally in Alien abduction and John E. Mack.
A standalone page creates a POV fork; merging into a “Psychology and UFOs” section ensures balanced context.

Specific examples

Simon ’84: staff-psychologist’s op-ed, not peer-reviewed research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief#cite_note-16)
Salon: single case of deceit, not systematic study (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief#cite_note-salon-2)
Chequers ’97: misquoted—paper says belief in extraterrestrial life per se does not correlate with schizotypy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief#cite_note-3)
2018 involuntary-commitment (David Grusch): cherry-picked to smear a whistleblower, no context (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief#cite_note-7)
Narcissism/conspiracy study: examines general conspiracy belief, not UFO experiencers, no counterbalance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_perspectives_on_UFO_belief#cite_note-journal-22)

Recommendation

Delete
Or merge into Alien abduction or Ufology, rewritten with neutral tone and high-quality, peer-reviewed citations.

Deletion/merging is policy enforcement, not censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werd sire (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The subject is well referenced to academic sources. This just appears to be a spill over from the recent AfD discussion of Harald Malmgren. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this has been properly transcluded to the deletion discussion list, but it's beyond by knowledge of how to fix that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the formatting and transcluded it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Helpful Raccoon. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with the spillover rhetoric. I read this article and found it to suffer from all the aforementioned issues. There's obvious misrepresentations of sourced material. In addition, a subject being well referenced to academic sources does not preclude it from biases or imbalanced perspectives, which is another issue with content in this article.

Not to mention, there is a peppering of academic sourced material next to opinion-based pieces as if they share the same validity and weight.

One glaring example is the entire UFO belief as faulty perceptuality section. All but one of the citations in that section rely on the book The Psychology of UAP by Joey Florez. This book was published by Florez Publishing. It is not academic or peer reviewed. It is opinion literature. Werd sire (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bias and neutrality are not reasons to delete the article, notability is based on the topic not the state of the article. The article may have problems that needs to be fixed, but this is a subject that has received academic research so there should be an article on it.
I said "appears to be a spill over" because this exact article and the fact that a link to it appears on David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims was something specifically mentioned on Reddit in relation to the Harald Malmgren article, if this is not related I apologise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for the first two points, those are problems that can be fixed and therefore are not reasons to delete. As for MERGE, the cognitive biases and case studies parts appear to be unique to that article and not to the other two mentioned. Heythereimaguy (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another editor, now blocked, removed large amounts of text with the comment "Government propaganda". Those edits have been reverted. See AbrahamFortitude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article, which previously passed the triple vetting process of DYK, is adequately sourced to more than two-dozen WP:RS (including no fewer than eight indexed, peer-reviewed journals) and meets our WP:GNG. Moreover, concerns about NPOV can't be addressed through deletion. Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a very clear bad faith nom to boot. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:53, 25 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.

Oscar Segurado

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

Does not seem to meet any of the notability criteria for academics. Justin Kunimune (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Justin Kunimune (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - h-index of 20 in a high-citation field like immunology isn't enough for WP:NACADEMIC C1. Subject has some routine business coverage in biotech sites like this [2]. His book has one review I can find[3] but it's in Kirkus Review indie program (which means it was paid for per WP:KIRKUS - so no WP:NAUTHOR. Can't find any substantive WP:GNG in independent sources. Zzz plant (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the tenured position doesn't satisfy ACADEMIC (at least the way I read it). If the citation index is low, does not meet requirements either. I can find scattered mentions with studied involving Humira, but I'm not sure that's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Germany, Spain, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hurghada attack

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

Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in the immediate days after the attack, no WP:LASTING or WP:SUSTAINED that establish WP:GNG. Open to an appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, Egypt, Armenia, Czech Republic, and Germany. Longhornsg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Terrorism in Egypt#Red Sea resort attacks (2016–17), where it is mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Coleman

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

Subject does not appear to be notable - the article is overly promotional/not written from WP:NPOV as well about the subject's campaign/platforms. Being a candidate for a political office does not make you notable, unless you are already notable per WP:GNG or any other relevant notability policy. But it doesn't seem like this subject is notable per WP:GNG. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and New York. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Candidates rarely meet WP:NPOL or WP:POLOUTCOMES. Not seeing how this is an exception. Reads like campaign literature. No bias against re-creation if he wins in November. Bkissin (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jess Coleman is not the subject of sustained coverage and all content regards his candidacy. Per WP:NOPAGE, Coleman does not warrant article independent of 2025 New York City Council election. Also, given the promotional nature of the article, I will simply leave this here: an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in future elections to offices they haven't already held, but this is not demonstrating that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides a candidacy. New York City is obviously large and prominent enough that he'll qualify for an article if he wins the seat, so no prejudice against recreation in November if that happens, but just being a candidate is not already grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Speiser

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

Local politician with no indication of notability. The subject is a village mayor (pop. 4,582) who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. JTtheOG (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nominator does not indicate how Speiser fails either WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Speiser does not hold state-wide office or higher, but is A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. According to the Belleville News-Democrat, his arrest was the number one statewide story in Illinois of 2022. Also made national news (NPR, NBC, Fox) this year with comments about discriminatory disability mascots. Kire1975 (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the BND story appears to be a top story in "Southwest Illinois." Kire1975 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only real coverage he's received is related to citation for state hunting violations. This is BLP and WP:CRIME applies - he's not a "renowned national or international figure" nor was "the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy." Also, this[4] is the only NPR coverage I can find mentioning him and it's not actually national coverage as it's from NPR Illinois. Zzz plant (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The byline is from "St. Louis Public Radio" which is syndicated nationally, for example it was picked up by NPR Illinois, where Freeburg is, near the border with Missouri near St. Louis. Kire1975 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP? Oh, I see. Okay. Change to Support Kire1975 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the article, Seth Speiser is a general contractor and a local elected official. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or misconduct (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell) or being a local politician who happens to be famous for another reason (Brandon Bochenski as Mayor of Grand Forks, North Dakota). A citation from the Illinois Conservation Police for hunting with bait does not meet WP:CRIME. His defense of Freeburg High School's mascot is not so great as to warrant an individual article per WP:NOPAGE and using coverage of his quote as Mayor is confusing existence with notability. A search of ProQuest, NewsBank, and NewspaperArchive did not turn up anything of note with run of the mill happenings like commenting on grocery store openings or The Freeburg Tribune noting he won election to the Freeburg Elementary School council. There are also a lot of efforts to mask a lack of notability in the article such as the use of three citations for the hunting violation. Per WP:OUTCOMES neither his business career as a general contractor (of which I found nothing) or his position as a local elected official warrant an individual article. --Mpen320 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 al-Funduq shooting

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

Also nominating the following related pages:

These articles fail WP:GNG. The only coverage is WP:ROUTINE news reporting in the immediate aftermath of the incidents, with no indication of WP:SUSTAINED or WP:LASTING coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be the paper of record for every isolated act of violence, regardless of scale or tragedy, as part of broader conflagrations.

The presence of significant casualties is not, in itself, a criterion for notability under Wikipedia policy. Notability must be established through multiple, independent, and reliable sources that provide substantial coverage beyond mere event reporting. In these cases, such coverage is absent.

These nominations are being made in the interest of consistency and in light of WP:NPOV. Both Israeli and Palestinian-related events should be evaluated under the same criteria and to avoid selectively retaining articles based on the nationality of the victims.

By contrast, articles like 13 July 2024 al-Mawasi attack (Palestinian) and 2021 Tapuah Junction shooting (Israeli) meet notability due to broad and enduring media analysis and public discourse. These stand in stark contrast to the transient coverage seen in the articles nominated here and mirror the community's consensus to merge 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting (Israeli) and Shadia Abu Ghazala School corpses (Palestinian).

The nominated articles can be and should be merged into Timeline of the Gaza war. Longhornsg (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion of 2025 al-Funduq shooting, 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike, and October 2024 Deir al-Balah mosque bombing

Generally, per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
The al-Funduq shooting was only 3 months ago, so it is still recent. The death of one of the perpetrators was also mentioned as recently as last week, so that seems to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
The Beit Lahia airstrike and Deir al-Balah bombing are both mentioned in South Africa's “Public dossier of openly available evidence on the State of Israel’s acts of genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza, as of 4 February 2025” (although the latter is only in a footnote). That these events will be used as evidence in the genocide case makes them lasting. The events are also recent enough that it feels slightly over-zealous to delete.

Not WP:SIGCOV, mentioned in several of over 100 footnotes in a 220+ page legal document. Longhornsg (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage was already established through WP:DIVERSE coverage in WP:RS, which is enough per WP:NTEMP.

I think you are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE. Per WP:NOTROUTINE, "if an article goes into detail about the event, it is not necessarily "routine" coverage." EvansHallBear (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Support deletion of 2024 Ra'anana attack as event has had not lasting or sustained coverage over the past year.~~ EvansHallBear (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me absurd to delete that one and not the others because unlike the others that one actually did get coverage again recently [5]. So I would oppose deleting just that one. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in the article so assumed no subsequent coverage. Should have looked slightly harder. I'm now opposed to all deletions. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Waechter

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. All I found were trivial mentions like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Georgia (U.S. state), and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Partain

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, California, Iowa, North Carolina, and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find sources under WP:NSPORT. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 09:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andres Arcila

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Colombian footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Colombia, New Jersey, New York, and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mudit Shrivastava

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

The article has been deleted multiple times under the title Mudit Srivastava. A previous PROD was contested by the creator, who then added a few references. However, none of the sources provide significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Madhya Pradesh. Junbeesh (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have added some more reference and Videos like doordarshan and Amar Ujala Kavya Podcasts, kindly consider. Bolta Kagaz (talk) 04:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bolta Kagaz Thanks for sharing the links. However, the sources provided are primarily podcasts and YouTube videos, which are generally not acceptable for establishing notability on Wikipedia. According to WP:GNG, a subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Information coming directly from the subject such as interviews or self-published content is not considered independent. If you come across third-party sources that provide in-depth, independent coverage, feel free to share them here and I'd be happy to take a look. Junbeesh (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance. I will check and update. Bolta Kagaz (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Anti-Imperialist Platform

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite having 72 sources, this article still fails WP:GNG. Most of them are either praises/critiques from communist parties and groups (which are not reliable and independent sources) and minor mentions of this organization by russian state-controlled medias (which, again, are not reliable and independent sources). I tried to find more sources about this organization but unfortunately there is nothing exepct more unreliable communist groups. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Just because some sources are unreliable in some matters doesn't mean they're unreliable in all matters, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:11, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these sources reliable in this context? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why aren't they?
Edit: I looked at some of the sources, and some are not WP:RS, like cite note 67, a wordpress blog. The article needs some work, but the topic is still notable enough for an article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 19:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because a lot of these are blogs and party bulletins. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:38, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You need to do better than that. It was me who found and mentioned the blog, your argument for deletion is pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

TASS and RIA Novosti, while deemed biased and unreliable for statements regarding the RUSUKR conflict, were not deprecated in all cases
bankingnews.gr, I cannot find it on WP:RSN, but that doesn't mean it's automatically unreliable or not RS
Daily Worker is also not deprecated

And so on.

I don't deny that there aren't problems with the article, but if you think that all of its ~79 citations are unreliable, or inadmissible for one reason or another, then you have to make a case for it. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

your argument for deletion is pretty much WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

an argument about source quality is obviously not “delete because I don’t like it”, and I think you’re literate enough to know that—at least on second glance (give it a try right now?)

That a source is not deprecated does not mean it reliable. The Daily Worker has no editorial information whatsoever on its website, and the article cited is now unpublished. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the Daily Worker website is not the same Daily Worker as the Wikipedia article you linked covers; that one ceased publication in 1958 and this online thing just claims to be continuing its legacy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, upon review:
The TASS sources are both about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and as such are definitely not reliable, and I am removing them.
The bankingnews piece is minuscule, and the source is apparently obscure.
The "Daily Worker" piece comes from some website called Daily Worker with no apparent relationship to the actual Daily Worker, and no listed editorial staff or policies of any kind.

Are these the best sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable. Personally disliking a source is not grounds for deletion Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange interpretation of the nomination. Could you please explain it? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as mentioned above, communist publications are not always unreliable. It is very expected that the communist international is covered primarily by communist sources, especially because the communist ideology is on the fringe of the political spectrum. Compare sources to International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties, a clearly notable organization that includes the communist parties of Greece and China, is also covered mostly by communist sources. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fresh blackcurrant, as discussed above, the sources are problematic because they are unreliable, not because they are biased. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 08:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—maybe I'm missing the reliable sources, but I see no SIGCOV in reliable sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per POLOUTCOMES. We have in the past deleted the platforms of other parties, including the Green Party and several smaller Indian parties. I think the consensus is only to keep party platforms of major parties that have more than a flying pig's chance of success, and then to redirect them into a single list. I recall even debating whether the platforms of the British Labour Party would be notable; they were redirected into List of Labour Party (UK) general election manifestos. I would not oppose an appropriate and reasonable redirect in this instance, either. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian this article’s topic is an organization with “Platform” in its name; it is not itself a platform. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's a bad translation or naming. That's not our problem. We are not a soapbox. Bearian (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely it is neither. A good guess is that it's a Russian front to try to co-opt communist parties to relabel their invasion of Ukraine and relabel NATO as imperialist. Either way it would be good to do our best to have an article on this and shed whatever daylight is available on this organization. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They've named themselves that, and the sources that cover the topic use that name. That's clearly not soapboxing. Castroonthemoon (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a party platform but a political international organization. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I nominated this for deletion about a year ago during NPP but then sort of reversed myself. I wrote a lot then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Anti-Imperialist_Platform maybe rather than repeating it all here y'all could have a look at that. Essentially, IMO this needs to be covered. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ATD: chop the hell out of the article and get rid of the more than a few sources turning Wikipedia into a puppet vehicle for propaganda, --OR-- rename the article. Apparently, there has not been much attention directed at checking the sources. I randomly checked some, surely thinking 72 sources means this may be a bogus AFD. The returns were, "This site is not safe, and phishing sites. A short propaganda piece, with a video, where a leader of the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) greets the World Anti-imperialist Platform. The article proudly displays "Imperialism is Going to Crash". We are not discussing keeping a notable subject, but whether we should allow Wikipedia to support advocacy for nefarious causes and junk articles. What! Say it ain't so. Oh yes, The Dakar Declaration, Arusha Declaration, the Porto Alegre Declaration, capitalism, and imperialism are mentioned in the The Dakar Declaration – Pan-African Cooperation and Global Solidarity source. I must have missed the mention of the subject. These sources, when there is no connection to the subject, I would like to state appear to be refbombs. However, the deeper I dig, the more it seems there is subterfuge. That is stating it sort of nicely. The evidence shows that this is exactly what the article, as written, is presenting. The goal of the "platform" (another article source) is to "fight the imperialist powers, "led by NATO and the U.S."" What does Still-existing utopian pedagogy: Architecture, curriculum, and the revolutionary imaginary (no mention of the subject) have to do with the price of tea? Nothing, nor the subject. The Victory Day procession held in Athens piece at least names the left-wing organization World Anti-Imperialist Platform as a co-sponsor. It states that the "enemy is NATO, the United States, and also the European Union. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your browser may tell you "This site is not safe" if it has outdated SSL certificates or uses HTTP. Neither of these indicate the site is a "phishing site" or unreliable source. "Propaganda" can be relevant to demonstrate the organization's beliefs. It is a primary source so it should be used with WP:PRIMARYCARE and WP:INTEXT. The "Dakar" source seems to have been added in error, since the WAP's declaration was signed there in 2024, while the one the source references was signed in the same city in 2022. It is clear the article needs to be proofread to fix the errors, but not deleted. The "Still-existing utopian pedagogy" source certainly mentions the WAP, as it is even in the abstract, but I would ask the person who originally added it, as the full document is not publicly available. A source being opposed to NATO does not make it unreliable, see WP:BIASED. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Otr500: I view a Wikipedia article as an expose' on this organization, not as a platform for it's propaganda. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is neither a platform for propaganda nor for exposés ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term exposé is a synonym for article. I think these kinds of comments display your literalist, and unhelpful reading of every article you nominate for deletion. Castroonthemoon (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two cents received; sniffed; returned to your cup with a gentle pat on the head. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're really not beating the WP:IDONTLIKE accusations Castroonthemoon (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably read the content linked to WP:IDONTLIKEIT if you’re going to incant it like a magic word whenever an article that you like is nominated for deletion on the basis of poor sourcing and lack of demonstrated independent notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. Accusing someone of “magic‑word incantation” when they invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT is itself an “I like it” and “I don’t like it” tactic: it seeks to disguise a deletionist preference as reasoned argument. Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the first sentence in Castroonthemoon's post, an expose simply provides information. It's not correct to say that Wikipedia is not the place for that. I chose that word to emphasize that aspect of it to Otr500 who seemed to focus more on the article being a platform for their propaganda. North8000 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Exposé" refers to the uncovering of a scandal, which is not what Wikipedia is for absent the existence of reliable sources identifying and uncovering said scandal. Your argument that this article should be kept because this is a dangerous organization that needs to be taken seriously as an insidious agent is not based in policy, though I understand it’s made in good faith. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's clear that they were speaking in common parlance, this is carpet surfing. Castroonthemoon (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your definition of "expose'" which narrows it to only scandals and when providing information solely to expose a scandal. Respectfully, using this definition this leads to a strawman mis-statement of what I said. Which in essence that simply providing enclyclopedic information in a normal enclyclopedic fashion and intent can also be an expose, which was the intent of my statement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's interesting seeing the exact same two/three users advocating for the same point in the last four deletion discussions, on the discussions for Initiative of Communist and Workers' Parties, World Anti-Imperialist Platform, European Communist Action, International Meeting of Communist and Workers' Parties. Castroonthemoon (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to SPI or strike and keep it on the playground. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prapaganda is listed in What Wikipedia is Not. We can make it sound like a necessary evil, but it is not necessary at all. Promotionalism and propaganda are usually good reasons to delete at AFD. A source offering "opposition" to anyone does not make it "unreliable. It is considered biased, which is also not a bad thing, in and of itself. It is the total of the sum that needs more than just error corrections. I don't see that the article can be, or that anyone will want to try to edit to fix problems. After reading it, I would suggest using dynamite and starting all over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the primary source that you called "propaganda". Obviously wikipedia is not meant to be propaganda for any organization. The article has some errors, and some unreliable sources, but it is notable. Fresh blackcurrant (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors opting to keep: please provide 3 sources confirming subject's WP:GNG criteria below. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's your criteria not Wikipedia's. By that criteria we would delete about 98% of all articles. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You think 98% of subjects with a Wikipedia article do not meet GNG? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you sure don't, you had to be told to stop mass nominating articles after you nominated over 130 this month alone Castroonthemoon (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a random non-sequitur personal attack, hahaha. Cut it out! It’s embarrassing and if someone who gives more of a shit than I do sees you, you’re going to be blocked. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. I hope that your mis-stating what I said into an absurdity was not deliberate. In shorter form, an educated guess is articles that include 3 fully GNG sources would be about 2% of all articles; 98% would not have that. North8000 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs trimming but this seems to be an organization that is worth covering. Moritoriko (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about to trim the article off all the fringe sources and references to the subject's own website (WP:NOSOAPBOX) and to see what would be left out of it. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, and the topic is controversial. Further discussion is merited in this case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find mentions of the term, or scattered hits. Nothing in Gnewspapers, News or Scholar other than brief mentions. Even the sourcing in the article is simple mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There do not appear to be sources that are considered both independent and reliable. I am working on a comprehensive check of all current sources to make sure. From the group's platform and websites, they appear to be a vehicle for Russian propaganda. Only independent sources I have identified are from blog-type posts from Communist groups criticizing the platform for being pro-Russia/China imperialism, but their reliability and utility in establishing notability are questionable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Info (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND, promotional, no reliable sources to support. Closest thing I could find directly about the band was a merch site [6]. GoldRomean (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GoldRomean (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I edited it a couple hours ago, and conjured only these three sources ([7], [8], [9]) by typing "Colombia" and "INFO" and "metal". Couldn't find anything on their albums. Potentially leaning towards weak keep, but we need ~1 source. LastJabberwocky (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shatta Gyal

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

Does not come close to meeting WP:NSONG. Sources are trivial mentions, promotional in nature, and/or from unreliable sites. The creator of the article also seems to be dealing with COI issues. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, Netherlands, and Jamaica. JTtheOG (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ChevoBeatz per rationale by nom, along with Time's Dread. Can we still tag the other song on? Subject needs all material pulled together for a near-decent article and for the GNG. gidonb (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm reluctant to delete a song that made it on to two different national charts. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say calling the “Hype Tv Jamaica” chart a notable WP:CHART would be a stretch. Even then, charting alone does not confer notability, especially considering the dearth of in-depth coverage available. JTtheOG (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Mortensen

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

Fails WP:BLP. Multiple redlinks, relies on a single source. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Literature. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you know its bad when the subject is "best known" for a book that isn't notable enough for its own page that combined with the lack of sources makes me have to vote delete Scooby453w (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of of WP:SIGCOV, it needs more sources covering him. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A page cannot rely on one source and expect to survive. If more sources can be found to support notability and bolster the article, that is a different conversation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I am usually very suspicious of articles about this kind of business/self-help author, the reviews for his books are well past the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Maximum Influence in the Journal of Consumer Marketing, the Roanoke Times, the Globe and Mail and the Miami Herald. Reviews of Persuasion IQ in Publishers Weekly (and [10] for the audiobook), the Agent's Sales Journal, Career Planning and Adult Development, AORN Journal and the Journal of School Public Relations. Reviews of The Laws of Charisma in Publishers Weekly, Life Insurance Selling and the Journal of School Public Relations. MCE89 (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources essentially encourage separate articles for his books, As PARAKANYAA said, his books are notable, although I disagree that business-type books are better served by an author page. Especially with the amount of sources about the books rather than the author, Kurt.

I'd encourage the creation of articles for their books, but continue with the deletion of this page as it isn't notable on its own despite WP:NAUTHOR, since the article fails WP:BLP more significantly than NAUTHOR. It doesn't seem to have been written responsibly. It relies on a source from a decade & a half ago and is a relatively unknown person, among other reasoning. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you mean by "fails WP:BLP"? BLP isn't a notability guideline — the relevant notability guideline here is WP:NAUTHOR, which says that a person who has created a a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple reviews is themselves notable, even if that person hasn't been the subject of secondary biographical coverage. It is very common for articles about authors to be based on reviews of their books. And I'm happy to add the above reviews to the article as sources whenever I get a chance. MCE89 (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concede there. But the above points still stand, and until those sources are added & attributed properly and the article expanded (if those sources are secondary and verifiable, which may not be the case) I believe deletion is still viable. By "fails WP:BLP", I meant it did not meet the content policy for having high quality articles, as stated in its summary it is necessary to take "particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" NikolaiVektovich (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MCE89... that his books don't have articles yet does not mean they aren't notable. Business type books especially are better served by an author page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IVeri Payment Technologies

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

Article fails WP:GNG due to insufficient independent sourcing (relying on company materials/press releases) and promotional tone. AndesExplorer (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and South Africa. AndesExplorer (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete no significant coverage, fails WP:NCORP fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage I can find meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Malycke

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

Article relies very heavily on entry list sources, those are not significant coverage. Only decent coverage is the Toby Christie source, which has decent coverage but is mostly routine sourcing. Several unsourced statements I cannot find anything on from any simple sources, and simply starting in a NASCAR national series is not enough for notability Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Ukraine, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up race match results. No coverage about this individual. What's used for sourcing in the article is confirmation of race results. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Ayasreh

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

My WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable independent sources with significant coverage of the subject so as to meet WP:BIO, and he does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NPROF either. It's possible that there may be decent sources in, e.g., Arabic, and if these were identified I'd happily withdraw my nomination. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Jordan. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign whatsoever of NPROF, and GNG notability is also not apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Mughal war (1686–1690)

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

The war is poorly covered in qualitative sources, The contents in the Events section is mostly filled with negotiations with little to no coverage for this war. Failing WP:GNG. Shakakarta (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Ethiopia, Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, India, Bihar, Delhi, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Europe, Portugal, and United Kingdom. Shakakarta (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is largely unsourced. I tried to search this topic on google books but couldn't find anything substantial. Dympies (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close - Misleading nomination. Gazillions of sources are around that have significantly written about this war.[11][12] [13]Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be so frenzied. 'Gazillions of sources' yet the last two are almost unreliable and first is a WP:NEWSORG tertiary source. Try finding reliable sources. Shakakarta (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Print article is written by an historian. That said, all of those sources are reliable. They establish WP:GNG. Recommend you to take back your misleading nomination. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [14][15][16] There seems to be plenty of coverage of the war. The argument made above is extremely vague. It obviously isn't a straight failure of WP:GNG. The unsourced portions are also irrelevant because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Aintabli (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did you decide there is plenty of coverage when you only showcased some passing sort keys mentions of "Anglo-Mughal wars" through the engines? Please cite two books having more than 1-2 pages of coverage. Shakakarta (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: But may need improvement. Somajyoti ✉ 10:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a mountain of coverage about this war.

Hunt, Margaret R. (2017). "The 1689 Mughal Siege of East India Company Bombay: Crisis and Historical Erasure". History Workshop Journal (84). Oxford University Press: pp.149–169. ISSN 1363-3554. JSTOR 48554769. {{cite journal}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
Hunt, Margaret R (1 October 2017). "The 1689 Mughal Siege of East India Company Bombay: Crisis and Historical Erasure". History Workshop Journal. 84: 149–169. doi:10.1093/hwj/dbx034. ISSN 1363-3554.
Refai, G. Z. (1977). "Sir George Oxinden and Bombay, 1662–1669". The English Historical Review. XCII (CCCLXIV): 573–581. doi:10.1093/ehr/XCII.CCCLXIV.573. ISSN 0013-8266.
Hunt, Margaret R. (2022). "An English East India Company Ship's Crew in a Connected Seventeenth-Century World" (PDF). Itinerario. 46 (3): 333–344. doi:10.1017/S0165115322000274. ISSN 0165-1153.
Seshan, Radhika; Shimada, Ryuto (5 January 2023). "The Safavid Mission to Siam and the Indian Ocean World in the Late Seventeenth Century". In Morikawa, T. (ed.). Connecting the Indian Ocean World: Across Sea and Land. London: Routledge India. doi:10.4324/9781003362487. ISBN 978-1-003-36248-7.

CharlesWain (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Andrew Entwistle

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

Non notable entrepreneur, lacking WP:SIGCOV. Rolling Stone UK reference is a puff piece and Forbes contributor written articles are generally unreliable, The Org reference is self published so i am unable to find out anything that stands out to keep the article as it is. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 15:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 15:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Essentially an advert of two (or one?) nonnotable businesses. The refs are usual PR. --Altenmann >talk 19:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The creator moved the article from the draft space bypassing the usual new article vetting process. --Altenmann >talk 19:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete - paid for garbage, vanity spam, sourced to paid for nonsense and obvious blackhat SEO.BUNNYDICAE🐇 19:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zürcher Vokalisten

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

Violates wikipedia self promotion rules, and fails notability guidelines for bands (in this case, an a capella group), violates NPOV. The group won a minor prize and has performed in minor concerts, and the only source is the group's own website. Besides that, there aren't any other citations and there aren't any inline citations. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Switzerland. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support googling does not show WP:RS Czarking0 (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting ranges in the United States

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was first nominated for deletion in August 2023 on the basis the topic in general was non-notable. The article at the time was basically WP:NOTAGUIDE/WP:NOTADIRECTORY and mostly uncited. The discussion reached no consensus.

I engaged in an extensive cleanup effort, which deleted the content which was uncited/uncitable or needlessly duplicating Shooting ranges, with no US-specific angle.

I got it to where it is now by November 2023, which is a start-class article with one well-sourced section on shooting over BLM/public land. Since ballistics and physics are basically global, the only "uniquely American" aspect is legislation, which fits nicely as a short section within Gun laws in the United States.

Since 2023, no substantive edits have been offered. Nobody has added content relating to types or designs of shooting ranges that are specifically or uniquely American (c.f. Shooting Ranges in Switzerland which discusses how Swiss ranges trend around oddly specific distances and features for cultural and historic reasons).

There is nothing special or notable about shooting ranges in the US compared with shooting ranges in Canada, China or the United Kingdom. Certain ranges such as NRA Whittington Center are notable in themselves for hosting World Championships, etc. But there seems to be no encyclopaedic value to "Shooting ranges in the United States". Hemmers (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The little that is specific to the US (e.g. administration by the Bureau of Land Management on public land) can be merged to Shooting range. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned above, there is nothing notable about shooting ranges anywhere. — Maile (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Limburg-Styrum-Bronchhorst

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

Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. No sources, tagged as such since 2009. There is no article on this Dutch and German family on the Dutch or German wikipedias. Not sure if this exists AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Netherlands. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should this disambiguate to House_of_Limburg-Stirum? Czarking0 (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources either - with a quick search - discussing this specific family Dajasj (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro the Dragon (2005 video game)

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

Seems like a non-notable sequal to a game. I tried to search for this but only the Spyro the Dragon shows up. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable sources for an apparently short-lived game on the java me platform which itself was short-lived.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Laugs

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

This article fails notabillity guidelines for musicians, and also violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. It does not cite any sources and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

support agree with reasoning Czarking0 (talk) 17:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I find it hard to believe he's not notable... Indexed in SIX national libraries, the VIAF. Gnewspapers brings up many hits, Gbooks has hits on his name from the 1930s to the present. The VIAF link has two biographical links in German. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Album review here [17] Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Æternam Films

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

may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"may not meet", you don't know? Did you do a BEORE and check???

DonaldD23 talk to me 18:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator as WP:BEFORE using Google / Google Scholar only turns up other encyclopaedic sources (Unifrance and iMDB) listing the company's personnel and filmography, thus not meeting the significant coverage standard in my view.

Pseudoname1 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not meeting WP:N and google searches do not such much either WP:SIGCOV Asteramellus (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found some book references which verify films it is/was involved in, but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Could possibly redirect to List of film production companies as an WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WorldTicket

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

Not meet GNG Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom. Also, sources are not WP:RS and 2 source links are not working. Asteramellus (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sono Mirai wa Ima

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

This article fails notability guidelines for music; it's a song by a not super well known artist, and this song hasn't won any awards, received coverage, etc. This article doesn't have any citations and is very short. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Good Dreams per nom. No hits on Japanese google that is worth mentioning. JP article is also unref. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claims in the nomination seem to indicate that a WP:BEFORE was not performed in Japanese or that the nominator is not familiar with Japanese music. I don't have any problem with the suggested redirection unless sources are found, but this song did chart nationally in Japan indicating possible notability under WP:NSINGLE, and the group has at least 7 top-10 albums which belies the claim that the artists are obscure. I would suggest trying to find sources in Japanese before nominating similar articles in the future. Dekimasuよ! 22:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -- thanks for pointing that out; I'm not knowledgeable in this area and in the future I will search for sources in the original language. My statement that the group wasn't notable was incorrect, I agree with the redirect idea. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FreeBSD Foundation

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

Not notable organisation Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Colorado. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to FreeBSD#Foundation where important info is already included.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UPL Co., Ltd

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

Obscure game company who released numerous notable games and went defunct long ago, whose only notable event in the 21st century is selling their intellectual property to Hamster Corporation. Little to no significant reliable sources about the company individually exist on and off the Internet, with the article sustaining on a single Twitter source for as long as one can remember. A Google search of UPL associates the name with an Indian company of the same name. Easily fails WP:NCORP. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. MimirIsSmart (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've also had a look at the article on jpwiki and none of the sources listed there appear to satisfy WP:GNG. If anything this should be a footnote on Universal Entertainment instead of its own article. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Hamster Corporation? Otherwise Delete. IgelRM (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Steel

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

I declined a G5 as an IP had some copyediting, but that might be a sock of the original banned editor, and I don't know enough about Indian companies to determine if the organisation is notable or not. So here's a discussion. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:05, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Wilson

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

This is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE following a message on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Looking through the sources, I just don't see the high quality we'd want for a BLP, with many sited to single news pieces. For a BLP with strong claims, I'd want to be able to resource from multiple news pieces, with no possibility of needing to rely heavily on a small number as this article does. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been to BLPN three times:

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive298#Jeanette_Wilson (February 7, 2020)—raised by article's subject; brief discussion, including generally refuting a concern about sourcing
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive299#Jeanette_Wilson (February 24, 2020)—raised by article's subject; specific analysis of individual sources, finding many to be RS, including several in-depth, and some claim of notability, but that some of the article needed rewriting to correspond more closely to what the sources specifically support
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeanette_Wilson (April 24, 2025)—raised by article's subject; the request that triggered this AFD

I have no idea if the article-editing discussed in #2 actually happened. DMacks (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conspiracy theories, Paranormal, Spirituality, COVID-19, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 11 and 16 are listed as RS. I also see coverage here [18], [19], would seem to have enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning delete as most of the sources are from a one year window (June 2019 to July 2020) acknowledging that a group of skeptics wanted to call attention to the subject. If kept the article should be written with WP:NPOV and condensed removing opinion pieces as sources of information, which I will add to my list WP:NOTADVOCACY. Nnev66 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McCormick (Northern Ireland politician)

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. A cursory search does not yield useful resources either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Northern Ireland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pathkind Labs

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

The article should be deleted due to concerns regarding its overall notability, lack of extensive coverage in independent sources, and the potential for promotional language Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond a Doubt

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

Current sources are all unreliable, and my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any better sources so as to establish notability through WP:NFILM. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Ghana. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The pages that list Ghanian films by year do not include one for 2023. It may be worthwhile to either create a page for 2023 (and have this as the sole entry until others add more) or to combine the other films into a single article until there's enough to justify breaking it off by year. There's no list on the main page for cinema of Ghana, otherwise it could redirect there, I suppose. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Cramer

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

Article was created by the subject's son in 2006 (edit: looks like Cramer edited his article a few times under Dylanrcramer12 (talk · contribs) and Dylanrcramer (talk · contribs)) and has survived for nineteen years with a single source – the subject's own website. I found two news articles on Dylan Cramer (one, two), but they do not mention any major works or accomplishments. The book Journeys to the Bandstand has a chapter on him and his father, but is unlikely to mention anything that would make him notable (or there would be other news sources reporting on it). Cramer appears to be a local Vancouver musician who does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Iiii I I I (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not appear to meet any of the 12 criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. I searched newspapers.com as well and found many notices about upcoming performances and the like (mainly in Vancouver area) but I don't see any sigcov to support WP:BASIC either. Zzz plant (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a close call because the musician has gained respect from other musicians, and that generated some basic coverage among afficionados, but unfortunately I must agree with the in-depth conclusions by the nominator and previous voter. There simply isn't enough with which to build an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the book chapter and news pieces highlighted by the nominator I found two staff-written album reviews at AllMusic here and here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, I found reviews for All Night Long at JazzTimes, All About Jazz, de:Rondo (Musikmagazin) [20] [21] [22] and in an index for Jazz Improv (magazine) [23]. I only searched for that one album. The fact that reviews are found across continents negates the "local musician" claim. Geschichte (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NMUSIC with the reviews found by the previous two editors, plus the chapter, plus there are long articles about Cramer and his first album (The First One, DSM, 1998, later re-released as Remembering Sonny Criss) in the French language newspaper Le Devoir (from the opposite side of Canada), one of which says "Il faut connaître Dylan Cramer. ... Cet album, il faut en goûter chaque note. Car Dylan Cramer a ceci qui est trės rare: chaque note mérite le doigté le plus fin qui soit." (You have to know Dylan Cramer. ...With this album, you have to savor every note. Because Dylan Cramer has something that is very rare: every note merits the finest fingering possible.) Plus, WP:MUSICBIO#5 says "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels" - he has released 3 albums on Nagel-Heyer Records. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Compelling arguments on both the sides. More input from community is appreciated. Also, a source eval would be great.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some articles about this person doing tributes to other people [24], but nohting about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare at Home

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

The NGO is not notable, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Unicorbia (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disparity between search engines. Google returns different results compared to DuckDuckGo for example when searching the NGO. Using only Google perhaps yields a narrow or biased return. 2A00:23C6:F213:4101:968:2B7B:BF67:615B (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article displays similar references and citations as other NGO’s and organisations in the genre. I feel the NGO is notable but can see the counter argument as well. Thanks and good luck! Beusefulbekind (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When the NGO’s website is entered into a search engine images are returned suggesting an indexing issue over lack of significant coverage. https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&sca_esv=017810d95fc5d12f&q=www.shakespeareathome.org&udm=2&fbs=ABzOT_BwhWbvgbq2-ldlJF_Xac4lwl4ZcQUKTNIEuq5aS_Zepj3qrSaXICRsYV5N74W3tzTRfsLFSrRz7ve1CoHJgcglLv8SGrSnkSeQFpu99wkeRdrZTbMXqXfA4_2TUZF5W45mnxYixR6y-5GTsKmF4TU8r9fiioDaNvE04XkK00AiS4qkNAWLdgnUAFsVApJDZA96ejXZyPTbx_jw3pTzfiHatMhw34ZCCznojS7RIg27Jp-Vdsc&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVj7PtwvKMAxUGWkEAHZaHLDoQtKgLegQIGBAB&biw=402&bih=677&dpr=3 2A00:23C6:F213:4101:968:2B7B:BF67:615B (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taleh Ziyadov

AfDs for this article:

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

Not eligible for G4. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Kuburović

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

Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Amateur level in Judo, "sport jujitsu" does not have guidelines and does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. Non-olympian, Non-notable martial artist. "Top sport" reads like a vanity page. Lekkha Moun (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzeel Altaf

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. Fails WP:NSPORTS.

It seems Altaf later became a lower-league cricket player in England but I don't see significant coverage of Altaf as such in the reports around this. Just the usual passing-mentions. (PS - this is the last Cricket bio I'll be nominating for AFD in this series of Lugnuts cricket bios that were all created within a matter of minutes on 15 November 2015 and have never been improved on since). FOARP (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a stub with no sources other then the standerd stats and no info other then a name and a dob obvious delete Scooby453w (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WRC Rally Magazine

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

This article clearly fails the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for TV. This is a TV show that seems to have been a one-off for the Monte Carlo Rally, lasting for just one season. This smells of promotion, too. There also aren't any citations, and there has been a citations tag since December 2009, 16 years ago. This article must be deleted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Speed, cannot find anything substantive online Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very WP:MILL pre-race show; just stated the latest results, did some profiles and previewed the next race, all of which are well expected and basic out of any pre-race show. And I agree with the nominator's PROMO concerns, as the article was created when it aired. Nathannah • 📮 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Nadir

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. No credible assertion of notability under WP:NSPORT. I see some passing mentions in match reports and an interview on Sky Sports (which is not an independent source since it's him that's talking, and doesn't contribute to notability). FOARP (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moed Ahmed

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB with no credible assertion of notability under WP:NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Point of Law

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

This book does not pass Wikipedia notability guidelines for books, and the author barely passes. One book in this series was nominated for the Edgar Allen Poe Award, but not this book. This page has had a "no citations" tag for the past eleven years and there are still no citations. This book has won no awards, is not on any lists, and is not a bestseller. Not every random book deserves a Wikipedia page. This book can remain in a bibliography list on the author's page, (John Maddox Roberts), but does not deserve its own page. It also violates Wikipedia guidelines for fiction, given that it consists almost entirely of a plot summary and character list. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SPQR series. The book is technically notable — I found reviews in Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly, giving it the weakest possible pass of WP:NBOOK. But with a book like this one that is only barely notable, I think it makes far more sense to just redirect to an article about the series. MCE89 (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I personally prefer series pages to individual pages. In most situations there isn't a lot about the individual book and can make it difficult to give anything beyond a plot review. The series page can give more of a general overview and context - plus in most cases a given series may only have one entry that truly passes NBOOK, often one of the later entries. This seems to be the case here offhand. So I agree - redirect. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, as a weakly notable book in a series. Though maybe part of the plot summary could be merged. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, technically notable but better served in series article. I'd merge the plot, kind of useless to have a series article without it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Ahmed (Pakistani cricketer)

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. The highly generic name makes this one practically impossible to even verify beyond the Cricinfo link (and Cricinfo isn't always that reliable) but there is no evidence of anything beyond passing mentions in match reports that do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSPORTS as the only claim to notability is participation. FOARP (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Extinction Rebellion House of Commons protest

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

A single day protest without much impact and significance probably fails WP:EVENTCRIT A1Cafel (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and United Kingdom. A1Cafel (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Iqbal

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. No evidence of an WP:NSPORTS pass. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wajihuddin

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. The existence of this article casts serious doubt on Cricinfo as a source, since "Wajihuddin" is essentially a surname, with anyone having this name typically being referred to as Wajihuddin Ahmed or Mohammed Wajihuddin. It is entirely possible that the Wajihuddins referred to in the reports collected on Cricinfo are not the same person.

Fails WP:NSPORTS as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and the only claim to notability is participation-based. FOARP (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't think redirect is possible here. Vestrian24Bio 07:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unknown for cricketers from South Asia to be known simply by a "surname" fwiw, and the chap played plenty of cricket - their are several passing references to him in CricInfo articles at the foot of the CricInfo page, although nothing in depth iirc. CricketArchive has him as Mohammad Wajihuddin, although names used in the two databases can differ a little anyway, but it's likely that that's the name. CA can be tricky to access as it's subscription but there are still, err, ways to do this... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmad Ali

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. No sign of significant coverage anywhere of the kind need to pass WP:NSPORTS, just passing mentions in match-reports. For the avoidance of doubt WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated participation-based claims to notability (i.e., ones based simply on having played in certain games or for certain teams). FOARP (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2025 Singaporean general election

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

Well, since I saw a result section for the 2025 Singaporean general election, I don't think that the page is rather necessary. I'm setting this page as a reason for debate or agreement. Sculture65 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify if AfD closes before 3 May, keep if it is after 3 May (leaning on WP: CRYSTAL BALL). Is it unnecessary now? Probably yes, given that the only results for now is the walkover. I don't see a need to delete now because when the polling day arrives on 3 May (which is not too far off), there may be so many happenings that one may opt for the summary of the results on the main article and have the details be written on this page. Keeping this in draft for the time being allows for a quick recovery if and when the article is needed on 3 May. – robertsky (talk) 11:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I created the subpage(s), as also I did for the Electoral boundaries changes of the 2025 Singaporean general election, is so that the present main page won't get too oververbose with too much information. That table is pretty large and honestly the main page only needs the results on the national level. In fact, I've actually considered doing up a subpage for political issues, but in the end, I think constituency-specific issues should go to the respective constituencies.

I'm trying to trim info and, when I plan to bring this to GAN, I might unfortunately have to still purge much of the trivia and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH info that goes into a bit too much detail (especially details on boundary changes or disqualification of past candidates). At the end of the day, what matters more is the quality of content and more stuff doesn't necessarily mean good. That said, I'm fine with you tinkering around with the subpages at the moment and writing more of the info there.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to draftify is to redirect to main article as I don't see much changes needed between now and polling day. – robertsky (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per robertsky. Can be moved back into mainspace after the election results are released. Procyon117 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is, where do you want that constituency results table? Is it large enough (33 entries) it be on another page?

I prepped that table in a way that it serves as a Candidates list that is ready to be turned into a constituency results table by simply filling in the necessary numbers.

Now it seems like it's moved to this page and someone decided to make their own incomplete version of the same table on the main page. It's a mess. A10203040 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting that.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just because other countries have separate results pages does not mean that Singapore should have results pages. No, previous elections in Singapore do not have this, and it's unnecessary with only 33 constituencies. It should just be at 2025 Singaporean general election#Results. Reywas92^Talk 13:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it necessary because already at 33 constituencies, it's taking up a significant amount of space on the page. On the main page, we will only need the results on the national level. In fact, on the previous elections pages, by right we should have moved the breakdown by constituency to its own pages. I find it very trivial to show the breakdown by constituency, tbh.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Splits might be unavoidable for large articles like this. WP:SIZERULE indicates that the likelihood of splits increases beyond 8,000 words. Currently the DYK tool puts the article at 7,792 words. If I am not mistaken, the tool excludes tables and lists. With the tables and lists included (infobox as well), it may be closer to 8,000 or beyond words. – robertsky (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until the May 2025 per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. if not, dratify or redirect.: There is a result out of 33 pending results which can qualify the existence of the article. WP:CRYSTALBALL says subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. in its main paragraph and similarly in its point 1. Partial result had happened (one constituency had a walkover and MP-elects confirmed) which make this article valid.

While there are no other election results articles for previous Singaporean general elections, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a good argument. We need to discuss it based on the article's own merit and also in the same token, we can argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS such as other countries's general elections have their standalone results articles and we had failed to create standalone results articles for Singapore's general elections!

Not the best metric due to formatting and markup of tables, this article has 45,670 bytes with the main article at 220,872 bytes, the article will be around 17% of the main article if merged back. As it stands on my screen, results article takes up about 5.5 of my monitor screens with the main article around 9.5 screens, meaning merging back to the main article, the results will take up 33% of the whole article length. Based on WP:SIZESPLIT, it may be more beneficial to split. ~ JASWE (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think a result of this election needs to have a separate article. Results can be listed at 2025 Singaporean general election#Results. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listed at 2025 Singaporean general election#Results. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently at 7871 words according to xtools, and the number is going to increase if you account for the potential Reactions and Analysis sections seen in previous SG GE articles (GE2020 for example). There is a high chance that this is going to cross somewhere around 8500 with these sections added (the GE2020 analysis section, for example, is 1860 words), so per WP:SIZERULE it is advisable to split out. Also, even if we choose to bring the table back to the main article (or merge, if that's a good word to use here?), the information on sample counts was newly added to the results article, so merging back would involve copying the sample counts paragraph back and thus the need for attribution, which means deletion is out of the question. And as for draftification, assuming this discussion doesn't WP:SNOW close and take the full seven days it will end on 1 May, which is only about 2-3 days from the beginning of announcements of results (not counting sample votes which come out earlier). So I don't really see the need for draftification only for it to be restored back to mainspace in such a short time. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 09:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@S5A-0043: WP:SIZERULE is not a hard and fast guideline, it is merely a reference point to be used. The 7871 word count includes the table and even if the article reaches 9000 words after post election sections are addded, Sizerule mentions that the article "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material". Given that the results is arguably the most important aspect of the election (in my opinion), and SG uses a westminster system with constituencies, it is perfectly justifiable for the table to be merged into the main article rather than being split off. I do however, agree that there may be other sections of the article that could be split off or trimmed such as the various trivia scattered around but that is something that can be discussed further on the article talk page. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 11:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Hamza

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. Sole claim to notability is playing for Lahore. Having possibly one of the most generic names possible in Pakistan makes this one difficult to assess. Presumably this is Mohammed Hamza Akbar but I don't see anything but brief mentions in match reports and on databases for them. No sign of WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to an appropriate list of players if possible. Vestrian24Bio 07:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herbie Smith (cricketer)

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. No evidence of a WP:NSPORT pass - sole claim to notability is having played one (1) game of first-class cricket. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 09:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything on Trove apart from a couple of brief mentions in match reports ([25] [26]). There seems to have been another cricketer named Herbie Smith who played in New South Wales, but about 20 years earlier. Couldn't find anything to indicate notability here. MCE89 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a Herbie Smith that played Aussie Rules. FOARP (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case here is to redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers, preferably with a note added with his basic biographical details. There's a clear WP:AtD and the long running consensus for articles such as this is that that's an appropriate action to take, preserving the page history and allowing for exapansion should sources be found. Trove might throw up stuff - perhaps linked to Collingwood who he played for at club level - but I'm unlikely to find the time to dig too deeply in to it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with redirection as an ATD though in this case, given the number of people with the same name (including another cricketer who played in NSW?), redirection to Victoria seems a bit questionable. FOARP (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no other Herbie or Herbert Smith listed on CricketArchive - which has a deeper database than CricInfo - that I could see challenging notability from a cricket perspective. Given the name that's something of an achievement actually. It has no mention of the NSW bloke either, so not sure at what level he played. It wouldn't be unreasonable to move it to Herbie Smith (Victoria cricketer) if you felt that were necessary, although someone might move it back claiming there's no need to dab. It's a future possibility anyway Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers per Blue Square Thing. Vestrian24Bio 07:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Leggatt

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

Subject does not appear to be majorly notable beyond inclusion in the musical Operation Mincemeat and the associated search. Majority of coverage of subject is coverage of the musical. Coverage of search for her identity is already covered in musical's article DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Military. DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is significantly talked about in Chapter 7 of Ben Macintyre's 2010 book Operation Mincemeat (full text) and there is a book coming out about her contributions in a few months [book page]. In addition, she has non-musical (or not-exclusively-musical) coverage about her war contributions here, here, and here. I think there is room for improvement in this article to better highlight the actual contributions to the war effort rather than just the musical-related research, but her notability itself follows wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG (two books with significant coverage of her life, multiple articles of the same). Engrigg22 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The upcoming book appears to really be about the search for her (i.e. musical research) rather than about her specifically. Her real-life contributions are able to be covered under the page for Operation Mincemeat, and the research around her is already covered (but if necessary could be expanded upon) in the page for Operation Mincemeat (musical)

It appears to me to be a case of WP:1E without a large enough contribution to justify an entire standalone article. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Cockburn (Australian cricketer)

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. No evidence of an WP:NSPORTS pass - sole claim to notability is having played in one (1) first-class cricket match. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are quite a few results on Trove — these are some of what I found: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. Most of them are quite brief, but they do imply that he attracted a fair bit of attention and was regarded as a star player for Richmond. Undecided on whether there's enough there to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC. MCE89 (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last one of those might be good since it at least tells you what he did for a living. Stuff around going to/coming back from England less so, especially the speculative pieces. Could withdraw on this if there were a bit more. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case would be to redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers, preferably with a note added to summarise some of the details known. There's quite a bit of stuff and he played in the Central Lancashire League in 1955 for Littleborough so that might throw up some more information. I think I'd tend towards looking to see what happened with expansion - I suspect that there may well also be war service that could be uncovered and that often adds biographical details to these sorts of articles Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with redirecting. FOARP (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers per Blue Square Thing. Vestrian24Bio 07:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Walker (cricketer)

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. No evidence of a WP:NSPORTS pass - only claim to notability is having played in four first-class cricket matches. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case here is to redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers, preferably with a note added with his basic biographical details. There's a clear WP:AtD and the long running consensus for articles such as this is that that's an appropriate action to take, preserving the page history and allowing for exapansion should sources be found. Trove might throw up stuff, perhaps linked to Collingwood. Ther e area appearances for teams related to Victoria at a level below first-class from 1946/47 till as late as 1954/55. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting a disambiguated title like this seems a bit pointless (no-one is going to search "Ronald Walker (cricketer)") but still preferable to keeping. FOARP (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers per Blue Square Thing. Vestrian24Bio 07:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhopal Bharat Teerth Express

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

It is a random short-lived train service. There is no source that I could find for the "Coach Composite" [sic] information in the article, even if it was notable. It seems to come under WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTDB.

There are 1000+ articles about individual Indian train services (though at least most of them are about regular services, rather than one-offs like this). See Category:Indian_Railways_trains.

There has been some prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express on this kind of article, which concluded that such generic articles might be worth deleting. There have been several subsequent individual nominations of similar articles, with most of the recent ones being successful.

Would it be appropriate to nominate big batches of such articles for AfD? How big a batch is appropriate? NS-Merni (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. NS-Merni (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Carter

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB. No sign of a WP:NSPORT pass, only claim to notability is having played a handful of first-class matches. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case here is to redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers, preferably with a note added with his basic biographical details. There's a clear WP:AtD and the long running consensus for articles such as this is that that's an appropriate action to take, preserving the page history and allowing for exapansion should sources be found. Three first grade teams, so there's every chance that there might be information to be found - I seem to recall a St Kilda history for example that might include detail - but I don't have the time to look into him in the detail that would be needed just now Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers per Blue Square Thing. Vestrian24Bio 07:28, 25 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 Withdrawn‎. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Fitzmaurice

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB, fails WP:NSPORT.

Two sources were found in my WP:BEFORE, both brief news-articles. The first is a brief speculative piece about him possibly playing in England (no sign that this happened), the second is a brief piece about him being selected as a replacement for a match. Neither describes the subject in detail as required by WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. FOARP (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a Wisden obituary and Trove throws up fair bit of coverage in Australian newspapers which goes beyond passing mentions. JP (Talk) 12:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpeeling - I honestly think the single-paragraph newspaper coverage doesn't cut it for WP:SIGCOV since it doesn't really provide any biographical detail, but the Wisden bio looks like it just about cuts it. Happy to withdraw at this point. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 24 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.

Jack Green (cricketer)

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

Masscreated LUGSTUB with no indication of notability beyond having played three matches for Victoria (which makes this an WP:NSPORTS fail). FOARP (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Australia. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that sources for a cricketer playing in Australia over that time period are likely to be mainly print sources - an inexpert search on Trove (Jack Green Cricket) or (Jack Green Victoria) gives large numbers of false positives, but there does seem to be some articles that appear to be about the person in question, although not necessarily about his first class matches. [38], [39], [40], [41] and [42] are examples.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All passing mentions in match reports - none describing the subject in detail as required by WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[43] covers one of his 2nd eleven matches.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just passing mentions that don't give you any biographical details about the subject required by WP:SIGCOV. FOARP (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sporting Globe article -[44] - while short, it is explictly about the person in question so I don't think it counts as a passing mention - although more is needed to carry an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worst case here is to redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers, preferably with a note added with his basic biographical details. There's a clear WP:AtD and the long running consensus for articles such as this is that that's an appropriate action to take, preserving the page history and allowing for exapansion should sources be found. There looks from the searches above to be a reasonable amount of information with a very common name, so I suspect that NEXIST could come into play here if necessary, with a decent source, a range of briefer mentions and the expectation that more will certainly exist. Played for Melbourne CC for >10 years, and there's likely to be war service given his dates Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers per Blue Square Thing. Vestrian24Bio 07:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of areas under control of an Overseas Country

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

Random selection of some islands which aren't independent, but not others (e.g. why include the Shetlands but not Northern Ireland; why Lord Howe Island but not Tasmania?; why not Åland, Svalbard, ...? ), plus a few non-islands and some very dubious entries (Alaska hasn't been "under control of an overseas country" since it was sold by Russia). The topic itself doesn't seem to be notable either. Fram (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. Fram (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, fails WP:NLIST. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The list appears to have no clear list inclusion and includes dependencies, departments, territories and even states of countries. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very vague topic. We have existing articles that tackle definable topics similar to this already. CMD (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP is not for settling obscure bar bets someone just made up one day. Mangoe (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random list of (mostly) offshore islands with unclear criteria for inclusion and some baffling inconsistencies (why the Shetlands and not the Orkneys? Are the penguins and albatrosses on the otherwise uninhabited Auckland Islands capable of self-government?) Daveosaurus (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer may send you to... CMD (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no real inclusion criteria. At its most broad level, it can be understood as literally any island or foreign military base. Since there are too many islands in the world that are not self-governing and are under the control of an overseas country, this is too vague. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 12:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague and meaningless list. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Tuttle

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

Mass-created LUGSTUB article failing WP:NSPORTS. No sign of anything but brief 1-2 sentence mentions in match reports ("Tom Tuttle of Collingwood...") and database entries. No relationship to the gentleman from Tacoma... FOARP (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Australia. FOARP (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – There are a plethora of mentions of Tom Tuttle on Trove but I've been unable to find significant coverage of him. The best I've been able to find so far are these [45] [46] [47] [48] but I'll keep looking to see if there are more. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worst case here is to redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers, preferably with a note added with his basic biographical details. There's a clear WP:AtD and the long running consensus for articles such as this is that that's an appropriate action to take, preserving the page history and allowing for exapansion should sources be found. Played ay first grade for Collingwood and Melbourne CC and I there's a good chance of war service as well which has scope to add detail Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Victoria first-class cricketers per Blue Square Thing. Vestrian24Bio 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme modulator

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

article low in context, does not offer much Iban14mxl (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article may be bad, but that's not a reason to delete it. The topic passes WP:GNG with many sources specific to the topic showing up with a Google Scholar search. I will defer to the opinion of people more knowledgeable on the subject. Stockhausenfan (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT, or redirect to an article worth reading. I have an open mind on whether we need an article on the topic at the moment, because my Google search produced mostly copies of this article[[49]], material about enzymes that failed to mention enzyme modulators[[50]], or mentioned them as a fuzzy after-thought, and very few genuinely useful articles (such as this [[51]]). There are also articles that talk about modulators of enzymes as possible pharmaceuticals, but it's not clear to me whether they support the idea of "enzyme modulators" as a specific term, or whether this is just natural language (see [[52]] where many of these are titles referring to enzyme modulators but they're just trying to say that a class of pharmaceutical modulates the activity of a particular target enzyme; it's like jam-jar labels, they label jam jars, we talk about jam jar labels but there's nothing special about them beyond being labels that happen to have been stuck on a jam jar. But the fact remains that this article is three sentences. The first is a dictionary definition. The second is only partially correct. The third is a quote taken out of context and entirely incomprehensible (and irrelevant). There's nothing here worth salvaging. Our readers would be much better served by something like being redirected to Allosteric modulator or something similar. Elemimele (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is just a broad label encompassing enzyme activator, enzyme inhibitor, and allosteric regulator. A large number of Google Scholar hits for such a general term isn't surprising; you'd probably get a lot of hits for "high-speed synthesis"; that doesn't mean the dozens of uses of that term would be a single cohesive topic. I could accept a redirect to enzyme regulation if people feel strongly against deletion, but I don't think there's anything here to save. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further contributions clarifying target for redirection would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been working with enzymes, and especially enzyme kinetics, since 1965, and I have never met this term before today. It seems to have been arbitrarily invented by a virologist whose contributions to enzymology have been minimal. Insofar as we need a term that embraces both inhibitors and activators the one established in the literature is "modifier", standard at least since it was used by Botts and Morales in 1954. Athel cb (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Polansky

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

This article fails WP:GNG with flying colors. First, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. If you remove the relationship this person has with Lady Gaga, then you would be hard pressed to find anything written about them. The subject may be accomplished, but there are absolutely no independent, reliable sources speaking on the subject in a way that isn’t mere mention. How can the CEO of a company have their own article before the company they are the CEO of is even notable enough for its own article? Marry Lady Gaga? Doesn’t meet the notability requirement. Brickto (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 07:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete his business ventures get vastly overshadowed by a relationship with Gaga and (to a lesser extent) the songs they wrote together. Little to none of the publicity this guy gets is focused on individual merits, and the more I think about this, the harder it becomes to find any credible sources on him that don't largely revolve around her and their relationship. Even pieces where Polansky is a central topic devote more attention to that part of him than anything else. Having a romance or even marriage to a famous person doesn't automatically entitle someone to a page, so I'm inclined to think we have a failure of WP:BIO here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and CREATIVE. Seems obvious to me the subject has been profiled in multiple reliable sources. Sources like this are specifically focused on him and his accomplishments. He has co-written a dozen or so songs that have charted and no one is suggesting he is only notable because of his relationship with Lady Gaga. This biography should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - At least for now, I agree with the nominator. Note that every single one of the 16 sources currently used in the article have Lady Gaga's name in their titles, but only a few have Polansky's name. The same is true of the Billboard article found by the last voter. Beyond that article, I can find nothing else about his business ventures or songwriting that is not dependent on his connection with Lady Gaga. WP:NOTINHERITED is the obvious guideline here, unless he emerges as the topic of additional dedicated news coverage in the future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an article title includes "Lady Gaga" doesn't mean the reporting is not focused on the subject. Of course writers are going to sneak "Lady Gaga" into the title in an attempt to increase readership. There are many Wikipedia biographies for songwriters who have (co)/authored many songs that have charted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and then they talk about her more than him. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer: Lady Gaga is also the primary subject of these titles as well.. “Who is Lady Gaga's fiancé?”, “Inside Lady Gaga's love story” —— these are articles about Lady Gaga. The subject of the nominated article doesn’t become notable by being in a relationship with someone who is notable. It may seem that way due to the fact that Lady Gaga is arguably one of the most notable figures of the 21st century thus far, but it isn’t. Polansky simply is not notable enough for his own article, and it is WP:TOOSOON. Brickto (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , more than enough available sources to further expand the article --Sricsi (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sricsi; Could you list these sources? The subject is not notable independent of his relationship with Lady Gaga. There are plenty of sources about the subject that cover him and his role in his company? I can’t find any. WP:TOOSOON Brickto (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)— Brickto (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 9t5 (talk · contribs). GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: It looks good to me, and I don't fancy wasting time with a sockpuppet's nomination. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane MacArthur

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. 3 of the sources are from own site. Promotional? ash (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what? We might say that these citations are WP:PRIMARY, and so do not count towards WP:N. But that's not an issue, there are plenty of other WP:RS here as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WDNZ-LD

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

More OR slop from User:K-Johnson 127; non-notable LPTV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNKY-LD

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

More OR slop from User:K-Johnson 127; at least one self-published source. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine Nose (song)

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

Redirect to Music (Playboi Carti album). Almost all the sources discuss this song in the context of the Music album or a series of concert performances. Only The Face talks about the song as its own thing. Not enough for WP:GNG. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it charted in other territories too, not just the whole continent. (North America) EternalBaile (talk) 14:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And literally every track from the album that has its own article, uses the same references and those references are mainly about the songs only in the context of the Music album. EternalBaile (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example "Trim". EternalBaile (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cummings-Grady, Mackenzie (March 14, 2025). "Playboi Carti's 'MUSIC': All Guest Features Ranked". Billboard. Retrieved 31 March 2025.
^ Diaz, Angel; Saponara, Michael (March 14, 2025). "Every Song From Playboi Carti's 'Music' Album Ranked: Critic's Picks". Billboard. Retrieved 31 March 2025.
^ Beaumont-Thomas, Ben (2025-03-17). "Playboi Carti: Music review – the most anticipated rap album this decade was worth the wait". The Guardian. Retrieved 2025-03-31.
^ Eede, Christian (28 March 2025). "Playboi Carti – MUSIC". The Quietus. Retrieved 31 March 2025.

EternalBaile (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the only article with a reference that is only entirely for a song and not the album. EternalBaile (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goebbels gap

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

WP:NEO which does not have any significant sourcing. The one source is a blog, and doesn't even give significant coverage to the term. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found exactly zero results in google books, google scholar, google/bing news, or newspapers.com. No regular google results either if you discount ones mentioning the creator of the neologism. Zzz plant (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not find any sigcov in reliable sources on a search Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Seems to be one author's coinage that never took off. Yue🌙 07:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The "coiner," Yair Rosenberg, is a staff writer at the Altantic and the author of books that pass the Notability guidelines. He's been featured in WaPo, The Guardian, and others. He's also been on Bill Maher, the Daily Show, and CNN, and has apparently testified before the House Foreign Affairs committee. Here This does by no means deserve its own page, but I propose this is merged and turned into one sentence on Yair Rosenberg's Wikipedia page.
Delete non-notable adaje. Azuredivay (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yair Rosenberg as WP:ATD. There's some coverage, but not enough for a WP:STANDALONE [53] [54]. Longhornsg (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fine by me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, see my unsigned merge rec above (sorry abt that) AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already one sentence in Yair Rosenberg which adequately covers it. Zero^talk 02:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS Manokwari Selatan

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

I can't seem to find any clear WP:SIGCOV about this club specifically beyond references in articles and posts about the Liga 4 generally. This article was draftified originally back in March, and the author moved it to mainspace five days later without making substantive changes while it was a draft. Anwegmann (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources present are sufficient to WP:NORG. It's the kind of coverage you'd expect from a lower division team. Svartner (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I am not sure what is wrong with the article exactly, newish team I believe, and sources will grow over time as they continue to exist. It's a bit bottom of the barrel, but I feel it shows enough to just warrant an article. Govvy (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources present which show notability. Giant Snowman 12:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evandra Florasta

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

This too appears to be, at best, a WP:TOOSOON draftify—again, a 16-year-old player who plays for his club's under-16 side and has only played youth international matches. The coverage on this player, which lacks clear WP:SIGCOV, is mainly attached to under-17 and under-20 Indonesia matches. Anwegmann (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely disagree with your assessment, I wish to ask, did you do a WP:BEFORE?, this player is classed as a rising star, per [55], top scorer. I've seen enough in a 10 minute search that clearly shows easily GNG pass if not WP:SIGCOV. Govvy (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed, which is why I suggested that this player fits within the bounds of WP:TOOSOON. Indeed, as a "rising star," he is a developing player, not yet established both in his team and in coverage—i.e. notability. And the WP:SIGCOV, while no doubt capable of growing, or indeed likely to grow, is not firmly established yet. That's why I suggested to draftify rather than delete. And for what it's worth, your aggression is off-putting. Anwegmann (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. The coverage is too shallow. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said on another one I voted on, I think Wikipedia:Too soon likely applies here. We should wait to see how his career develops to see if he is notable enough to have a page. If he ends up leaving football entirely in a year and grows up to become an accountant, creating an article like this would end up looking rather silly. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:35, 24 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 with a side of IAR. We're not wasting further community time. Star Mississippi 13:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Mangione

AfDs for this article:

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

does killing a company’s top executive make a person notable? See WP:BLP1E. --Caperbum424 (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC) — Caperbum424 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - WP:BLP1E C3: John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. Also definitely meets WP:GNG. Zzz plant (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the subject obviously meets WP:GNG --jeschaton (immanentize) 03:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably ban evasion from the person who tried to delete the shooting article yesterday. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the nominator is most likely 2600:1017:B835:A210:F4FF:9BA1:8B23:519E (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Brian Thompson several hours ago. Can an admin or experienced editor please speedy close this AfD? Some1 (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. it would be a miracle if this guy gets fould not guilty, but IMO criminals don't deserve to be talked about on this website. --170.170.200.174 (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. jeschaton (immanentize) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious ban evasion by a weirdo. Keep. Strawberries1 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Crime, Engineering, Computing, California, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily- potentially speedy. Even now, there's longer form coverage of Mangione emerging, ex [56], this pre-print, this pre-print, this article, etc. Clearly the subject of enduring coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SPA that starts a AfD within ten minutes of joining? Yes, that seems reasonable. Cortador (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly a notable individual. He has gotten a significant amount of long term attention just on his looks. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Very notable. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. We've been over this several times on several versions of articles relating to Mangione and Thompson. The current consensus is stable, and the deletion of Brian Thompson was not at all clear based on consensus.User:Coretheapple had the reputation and understanding of guidelines to make that AfD. User:Caperbum424 does not demonstrate either of these. There are certainly problems worth discussing with this article, but nothing worth AfDing. guninvalid (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He is very notable. Masktapeisawesome (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Doesn't matter if what he did is not significant (although that is debatable), he got WP:SIGCOV for it. A person could cure cancer, but if WP:RS don't cover them or their cure, they wouldn't get an article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hatted obvious LLM-generated content. Write your own ideas yourself

Keep The proposed deletion of Luigi Mangioni’s Wikipedia page is not a neutral act of moderation — it is a strategic erasure of a flashpoint figure in one of the most emotionally and ethically charged public debates in recent memory. Mangioni is not simply a private citizen. He is the alleged perpetrator in the killing of Brian Thompson — a pharmaceutical executive whose role in predatory healthcare pricing has made him a symbol, to many, of systemic cruelty.

Whether one views Mangioni as a criminal, a martyr, or something more complex, the undeniable truth is this: he has become a folk hero to those who see the American healthcare system not as broken, but as functioning exactly as it was designed — to extract, deny, and discard. Mangioni’s name has been scrawled on protest signs, whispered in online forums, and turned into meme-lore precisely because he is perceived to have acted against an untouchable class of profiteers who engineer suffering with legal impunity.

This cultural resonance — whether one finds it inspiring or horrifying — is historically significant. Attempts to sanitize the public record by removing Mangioni’s page under claims of "lack of notability" or "policy violations" are transparent acts of narrative control. Wikipedia cannot claim to be the encyclopedia of the people while selectively pruning the entries that make people uncomfortable.

Deleting this page is not about standards — it’s about silence. And silence, in the face of public outrage, systemic injustice, and a growing mythos surrounding Mangioni, is complicity. Let the page stand. Let history record what happened — and let people decide what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.87.13.143 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per PARAKANYAA. hinnk (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Obvious notability. I think this nomination was made in bad faith. Dr. Hyde, muahahaha _{jekyllthefabulous} (speak, or you shall die) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep same reason as above, Mangione is a very well known individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind the gap 1 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A number of references available from reliable sources. Passes WP:BIO. This is not about if he is a criminal or a virtuous individual. We can discuss significant coverage here. AndySailz (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refocus - The topic here is clearly the killing and the resulting legal trials for Mangoine, not really Mangione himself. This is not like Lee Harvey Oswald where there is an extensive amount of details outside of the actual event. HEre there are exactly 2 paragraphs + 1 sentence about Mangoine that is not connected with the event. This is not to say the content isn't appropriate, because the events around the killing and the trials are documentable, but we shouldn't pretend this is a biographical article, this is a summary of a news topic. Arguably, both this article and Killing of Brian Thompson should be merged, after trimming excessive details, but as a simpler step, this probably should be called "Trial of Luigi Mangione" as to be clear that this is not a biographic page. Masem (t) 12:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and please WP:DROPTHESTICK. cookie monster 755 12:47, 24 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.

Indoor Shooting Range, Kollam

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

No sign of notability, with virtually all coverage being WP:ROUTINE Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malut United–PSM Makassar rivalry

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

These teams have literally only ever played once. This is hardly a notable rivalry with enough history to acknowledge beyond a single meeting. Anwegmann (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A rivalry with a single match, even if it contains regional factors, is not relevant enough for an article. Svartner (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article about this rivalry is indeed new, but it does not rule out the possibility of the next closest match, this rivalry is slowly gaining its own popularity with several sources. Ricardus Reo (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect – The next match will take place in May. This shows how this article will be important going forward with the increasing references and history that is happening, or maybe just redirect to another related page if you feel this article is not yet worthy. Qabby Suta (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:02, 24 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 keep‎. Not a strong consensus, but a consensus. A possible merge of new material can be discussed elsewhere. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Banda

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

Declined prod. The 2 added sources [57] and [58] are not indepth coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. An unremarkable career, never made it to Olympics and 37th in world championships. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malawi at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. Fails GNG due to a lack of SIGCOV. As always, a redirect does not prevent any user from adding some content from the sunject's article into the target, ideally with discussion on the target's talk page. Frank Anchor 13:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep per refs 3 and 4 below, which add just enough SIGCOV to be considered GNG-passable. I do maintain that redirecting is a viable ATD if there is consensus not to keep. Frank Anchor 15:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just expanded the article with several new references that include SIGCOV. It's sad but true that most African countries do not publish durable news and analysis from even ten years ago – the SIGCOV articles in this case were only from 2015 but are still only accessible via webarchive which is not searchable, and they wouldn't show up in any Google search. There are surely more, but I'm not aware of any way to access them unless archive.org creates a webarchive search in the next few years. --Habst (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just barely; of the newly added sources, [59] and [60] look like WP:SIGCOV if you squint. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(No objection to Frank's suggested redirect either.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes in WP:NATHLETE. Svartner (talk) 16:44, 18 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.

Ali Mohamed Al-Balooshi

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

Declined prod. 5 of the 7 sources are databases/results listing. This source and this are just a 1 line mentions of Al-Balooshi and do not meet SIGCOV. His medalling in junior competitions doesn't really add to WP:ATH. Those wanting to keep should supply actual indepth sourcing. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and United Arab Emirates. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Arab Emirates at the 2004 Summer Olympics as ATD. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Total failure of WP:NSPORTS. Mere participation is not an indicator of notability. FOARP (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Baker (footballer, born 2009)

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

This looks like a WP:TOOSOON draftify to me—a 15 year old who has never played above the under-18 level, both for club and country, with episodic press coverage. This player appears to have potential, but he is not notable yet. Anwegmann (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Wikipedia:Too soon likely applies here. We should wait to see how his career develops to see if he is notable enough to have a page. If he ends up leaving football entirely in a year and grows up to become an accountant, creating an article like this would end up looking rather silly.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Olla

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

Subject does not appear to have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are primary and the best I could find in a BEFORE was 2 sentences at [[61]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meditopia

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

Entirely promotional and fails WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ILIKEIT, but it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Sources are routine announcements, funding, etc. Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the newly added references?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve trimmed the article significantly to take out anything that sounded promotional or was just routine info. What’s left is backed by solid, independent sources like TechCrunch, Forbes, and Deloitte, which offer real coverage that meets notability guidelines WP:NCORP / WP:ORGCRIT. I think the article should stay, and I’m totally open to improving it further with help from other editors. Hariseldon42 (talk) 12:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Uruli

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

Sardesai, Govind Sakharam (1946) dedicated 2-3 (I'm overestimating here) lines to the actual conflict, Subrahmanian, N. (1979) mentions this conflict in passing (not by the name it is named as), same thing with Mehta, Jaswant Lal (2005), the only academic tertiary source covering the Marathas , Gordon Stewart (2005) does not even mention this battle, although it is cited here. This article completely fails notability guidelines, there is no significant coverage for the battle and even the cited sources don't call it what the author has named this article. Ratnahastin (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No, you're actually under estimating. Sardesai has one and a half page of coverage, correct me If I'm seeing things but it's clearly verifiable. Page 289 in Subrahmanian literally calls it "Battle of Uruli". Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect, the source only has a few lines for the actual conflict itself, most of what you are considering as coverage is in fact about the background and events that happened after it. Your source is also too old to be used and all the relevant detail about the conflict is just this:

On 8th December Nizam Ali occupied Chas, 20 miles north of Poona and pushed on to Uruli less than one day’s march from that capital. Here his advance was halted. His devastation of the places of sanctity had already estranged his Maratha subordinates and sedition was being successfully employed in his ranks. Ramchandra Jadhav and Mir Mughal, Nizam Ali’s brother, deserted him and came over to the Peshwa. This defection in his forces created a serious situation for Nizam Ali, who came to be practically surrounded at Uruli and was compelled to beg for terms to secure his retreat.

Can you provide the full page? From the snippet it says: "Urali, Battle of 140". Ratnahastin (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what actual "battle" coverage looks like:

he marched directly upon Poona at the head of a powerful army of sixty thousand men, with a determined intention to capture the nerve-centre of the Maratha power and to prostrate it permanently. Fire and desolation marked the trail of Nizam Ali’s invading forces. By destroying Toka and Pravara-Sangam, two great centres of Hindu religious sanctity, in November, he added fierce fanaticism to his political aims. He dug up Sindia’s palaces at Shrigonda for obtaining hidden treasure. The menace so quickly approached Poona, that it then created a scare, in consequence of which the Peshwa’s family and some of the general populace removed themselves for safety to Lohgad, Purandar, Sinhagad and other places.

At this trying moment Madhavrao and his uncle sent urgent calls to Janoji Bhosle and other Sardars to join the Peshwa’s standard,

so that a force of about seventy thousand was assembled by the end of October. With this army they at once moved to oppose the enemy and bring him to submission. Avoiding a general action, they harassed the progress of the enemy at every turn, and wore down his spirit in several skirmishes which took place at Ahmadnagar, Shrigonda, Hivre and Bhuleshvar on the enemy’s route towards Poona. On 8th December Nizam Ali occupied Chas, 20 miles north of Poona and pushed on to Uruli less than one day’s march from that capital. Here his advance was halted. His devastation of the places of sanctity had already estranged his Maratha subordinates and sedition was being successfully employed in his ranks. Ramchandra Jadhav and Mir Mughal, Nizam Ali’s brother, deserted him and came over to the Peshwa. This defection in his forces created a serious situation for Nizam Ali, who came to be practically surrounded at Uruli and was compelled to beg for terms to secure his retreat.

I'm not even quoting the aftermath or prelude of the battle. It's just you conveniently left out other parts. Subrahmanian's citation was for your "sources don't call it what the author has named this article" question, it surely doesn't have more than half a page of coverage. Although the gap is filled by Sardesai. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's break down the so-called "significant coverage", it seems you didn't even read the quote you have pasted here:

November, Nizam destroys Toka and Pravara-Sangam.
October, Large forces assembled by Marathas.
December, Nizam occupies Chas.
December-January, Nizam's further conquests are halted at Uruli(the actual conflict begins)
January, Nizam is surrounded and his men defect.

The real conflict only begins at Uruli in January, you have simply cited the conflict preceding here in this quote, the way Sardesai is discussing the conflict, it is obvious that he is treating this battle as a part of the broader conflict between Marathas and the Nizam, there is therefore no significant coverage about the battle in the sources, it is irrelevant what Subramanian calls it ( he doesn't even call it what the it is titled as), if he doesn't cover the battle. The quote i posted earlier is all there is. Taking an excerpt out of an outdated work and spinning it off into an article is completely unwarranted, this page should not have been created in the first place. Ratnahastin (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:52, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination Hionsa (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG No significant coverage in independent and reliable sources.

The most detailed coverage that I could find is in Sardesai (1946) (pp. 467-8) and Banerjee (1943) (pp. 5-6) but neither of those sources:

Call the conflict the Battle of Uruli;
Talk about it in any significant or consistent detail, focussing more on the internal fissures and politicking among the Maratha leaders.
(most importantly) Are reliable for this topic area. Besides being ~80 year-old dated sources, see also this scathing review of Banerjee (1943), which also takes a side-swipe at Sardesai's oeuvre as "one-sided studies" compared to even Banerjee; Gordon (1993) (pp. 5-6) has a similar critique of Sardesai.

None of the other sources in the article, or ones I could locate, provide any better coverage. Any of the material found that is relevant and source-able to modern scholarship can be easily included in a sentence or two in the Madhavrao I, Raghunath Rao and related articles.

Lastly, note that the current version of the article misrepresents many of the sources it does cite. For example, none of the details in the Battle section, the core of the wikipedia article and central to the subject's notability, are found in the cited source, Sardesai (1946), and seem to be made up on-wiki afaict. Even worse, the claims in the first sentence of Aftermath section are the opposite of what the cited source Gordon (1993) says on page 155, viz., it was the Nizam who was "bought off" by being offered a large tribute by the Marathas. Sitush has previously made several attempts to clean up the article by removing unsourced and false details but those are simply added back by a series of (subsequently blocked) accounts. Abecedare (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - here via ping from Abecedare but have worked on this article myself. Abcedare's analysis here is correct. I'm afraid it is one of many largely fictitious/pseudo-history "battle of ..." articles created & supported by a seemingly extensive sockfarm of glorifiers. At best, as I said in a 2023 edit summary there, sources only support in passing a minor skirmish, and those sources are poor. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Assassins

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

Tag team that lasted a year. Chief problem is WP:GNG: main sources are database entries, with a WP:BEFORE check pulling up nothing substantial. Two books are cited with this article: one page from an overview of WWE wrestling in the 80s (Shields: inaccessible on Google Books, but it would be hard to argue significant coverage from a single page overviewing an era of pro wrestling), and another broad book covering the history of pro wrestling. Nothing standalone is the concern with these cites. /over.throws/^✎ 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. /over.throws/^✎ 16:18, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if it lasted for a year, it still attracted enough coverage to warrant a standalone article here. In principle, as David used to mention , Delete is reserved for when nothing else can be done to save/salvage. Information purged is information lost. This is apolitical, informational, and non controvertial (in wiki sense) , hence the suggestion. Devopam (talk) 05:15, 11 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!} 23:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have any magazines from the time period been checked? I haven't seen any mentioned here and that's an issue since this team was from the late 80's. KatoKungLee (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 01:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sarangpur

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

Another "battle" article with only two lines of knowhow around the event: The two armies met in A.D. 1437 and after a severe engagement, the Sultan's army was utterly routed. It shouldn't have been in the mainspace to begin with. Shakakarta (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The article includes adequate background, details, and aftermath section. It's also well-referenced. It shouldn't be deleted. Czar-peter-123 (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- The battle is a significant event in medival Indian history as it started the the full scale war between two most powerful polities of that time. Aside of that it has significant coverage too in history books. The only think that it lacks is coverage on Wikipedia which I will be doing by tomorrow evening. Rawn3012 (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No source gives a detailed description of this 'Battle of Sarangpur'. Heraklios 14:00, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly WP:NOTABLE historical event with multiple reliable sources. Even if anything is imperfect, we can still WP:PRESERVE it.Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 10:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL argument. The page was standing for years but there was no improvement because there's nothing we can do to savour it. Some three lines of coverage don't help it to pass WP:GNG. Heraklios 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. Sources cited give a brief amount of coverage, not more than a small paragraph, the crux of the battle should be over a page. Also why's there flag of Delhi Sultanate used for Malwa Sultanate? Heraklios 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG, SIGCOV exists in the sources (Mankekar, D. r (1976) U.N Day (1978) Hooja, Rima (2006)) this is a chain of nominations made within minutes of one another and complete falls afoul of WP:BEFORE. CharlesWain (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless aspersions. The sources you have given don't go beyond a few lines of passing mentions:
- Day: Passing mentions, even the author de-legitimated it with "So called" prefix.
- Hooja: "The armies of Mewar and Malwa clashed at Sarangpur in 1437. The latter army was conclusively routed here." - That's it.
- [62]: Not accessible, no sign of coverage either.
- Mankekar: "The engagement that followed saw Mohmad Khilji routed" - That's it.
Har Bilas is an unreliable source, now prove me wrong by citing a source covering the battle for at least 2 paragraphs. Shakakarta (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how is har bilas unreliable source? Aryanisking (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : @Shakakarta, @Heraklios and @Rawn3012 This is one of the most important battles of 15th century in northern India. The sultan himself being captured by Kumbha forces—an event that highlights the importance of this article. Many notable (WP:RS) sources cover this event. Though there is scope for improvement of article by addition of information from reliable sources, there is no such need for deletion. Check these sources, they cover the battle in more detail; [63] and [64] though preview is limited. You could use Sarangpur/1437/etc. in search option to look for this battle. I had offline copies in library but School is closed due to summer vacations. Someone can improve the article based on the info available in the books if they have it online. I have already asked Rawn for it as he often edit articles related to history of Mewar. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Shakakarta The battle has been discussed in detail by authors like R.V Somani in Maharana Kumbha: A Glorious Hindu King and by U.N Day in Maharana Kumbha and his times. I have revamped the article for your info. Rawn3012 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the debate over the sources, perhaps a source assessment table is in order, or some input from some of our seasoned AfD participants and source analysts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Insurrectionist

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

Improperly sourced WP:BLP cited largely to tweets. The basis to notability here is two conspiracies propagated by this person, which were then debunked. This material does not prove notability for the person especially for the higher standards on a BLP. There is almost no material here about the topic it claims to be about (the person), and barring a single source (AP which is fine) the sources do not contain sigcov about him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Internet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are about the conspiracies, not about the account creating them. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liga 4 (Indonesia)

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

It is my understanding that fully amateur leagues are considered not notable under WP:GNG/WP:SPORTSCRIT. If this is incorrect, then "speedy keep" this article and disregard this AfD. Anwegmann (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – More than 40 references and is part of the official football pyramid in Indonesia, where the sport is popular. Svartner (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is clearly needed, it is sourced. You should be trouted for this nomination. Govvy (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. Anwegmann (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - the professional/amateur status of a league does not matter, what matters is coverage. Giant Snowman 12:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is easy. There are hundreds of pages that link to this page. It is vital that users are able to know what the football tiers in Indonesia are. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just because it does meet a presumed notability guideline, it meets GNG anyway Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Godfrey

AfDs for this article:

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

Everything is related to his claims of once seeing a UFO. A standard WP:BEFORE fails to find any other point of notability. Fails WP:BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, this should have been speedily deleted. For transparency and to avoid bookkeeping chaos, I'll defer to someone else to close this. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Paranormal, Police, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of unused sources available to support notability, including [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. It just needs a {{more citations needed}} template at top, per WP:ATD. I'd say it passes WP:BLP1E. 5Q5|^✉ 12:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Sky History (the first linked source) the same as the History Channel? If so It might not be reliable, as explained at WP:RSPHISTORY. Bonus Person (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prajal Regmi

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

Regardless of how this turns out, thank you Flyingphoenixchips for the reminder about WP:ATD-T. For reference, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (people). I think the only sources for this biography that have significant coverage (Honei, Vanguards of Wesea, SEED Cell, and iU) are either not independent or not reliable. Honei could be independent. I consider them to be basically human interest reporting, which is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and I don't see evidence of reliability (like editorial oversight) to refute that generalization. Vanguards of Wesea is – per its website – an initiative of the Wesean High School Students Forum. It looks like its stories are produced from nominations that are then assessed according to that website's definition of notability. Despite the nominations being reviewed by editors, I am skeptical of that source's independence from the subject. SEED Cell and the iU interview don't seem independent. In my search for sources, I only found newsheads.in. That source ended up on the spam blacklist, so I won't spend too much time evaluating it. Overall, I don't see evidence of notability. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:40, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Sikkim. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, deletion discussion would be the best course of action to get a consensus on notability! :) For now I have added the additional references! I am kinda on the grey area on whether the subject is fully notable or not either. However would appreciate input from other editors here. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not like to support a keep or a delete for this article, as I do agree with most of what PrinceTortoise had to say. https://www.iuemag.com/u20/is/an-inspiring-young-entrepreneur-from-the-northeast-india-Prajal-Regmi IU] is definitely not a reliable source. As for SEED Cell it seems reliable to me, because the article itself only reports of the person winning an award, and I do think this might be independent of the subject and is only reporting news about entrepreneurship from the state. As for Honei I defnitely am on the edge. Yes, it is definitely a case of human interest reporting. As for Vanguards of Wesea I do feel the subject is definitely independent from the article. There is a named author for each article, and from their website they state that "Vanguards of Wesea is strictly an encyclopedia... All nominations undergo thorough verification, and our editors ensure each person's notability through third-party sources and confirm that their achievements are legitimate." I do not see anything there that might show tht the subject is not independent from them. But again, yes, the editors listed all seems to be minors so the quality of journalism might be questioned. Not to seem ageist, but I would like to see what others have to say for the same. But yes, I myself have not been able to find any other sources apart from this. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (Canada)

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously soft deleted, the new page does not establish notability and is largely reliant on self-sourcing. This party is not registered with Elections Canada and is not running candidates in the 2025 Canadian federal election. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Worth noting that the topic of the article that was soft deleted was a completely different organisation. The previous article was of an unregistered fringe Maoist group, while the new (current) article is about an unregistered fringe Trotskyist group. Regardless, like the previous article topic, this Revolutionary Communist Party has no in-depth coverage by reliable sources and should be deleted for failing WP:ORG. Yue🌙 07:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Socialism in Canada. Wellington Bay makes a good point about the party not being registered with Elections Canada, something the other major communist parties in Canada have done. Much of the sourcing comes from the party themselves, with the only example of WP:SIGCOV being the source from La Nouvelliste. Bkissin (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://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=ama&f=false

[1] 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=ama&f=false

[1]