Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 28	March 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sirat al-Nabi

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

There is no doubt that the subject is notable. However, the article in its current state is not sufficient to stand independently. Previously, I added content from a CC-BY licensed source, but it was removed due to incompatibility. I have checked multiple revisions, but most of the content remains unverified and unsuitable. Therefore, I propose deleting this article and redirecting it to Shibli Nomani.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 23:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 23:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Owais Al Qarni: Could you please link to where the source shows it is CC-BY licensed? It should be compatible, not incompatible. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was my mistake. CC BY-SA 4.0 is not compatible.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 06:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CC BY-SA 4.0 is compatible. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Also, per WP:BLAR, we don’t need to bring a case like this to AfD but can just go ahead and redirect. Mccapra (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pollo Brujo

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

A chain with 10 locations just does not seem notable enough to me. There is some coverage, but it does not seem significant to me. One of the references used is an Ubereats link. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Latin America. Aŭstriano (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick look at the news tells us there is significant coverage on reliable sources. Also, as per nominator, it is ten locations IN GUATEMALA plus elsewhere, not ten locations only. Janette La Bruja Martin (dime?) 15:46, 22 March, 2025 (UTC)
Comment Per ads and advertorials in Newspapers.com, it started in the 1970s in Mexico, and by 1998 also had locations in Guatemala, El Salvador and Panama (to add to Colombia and Costa Rica as stated in this article). It sounds pretty big. As for coverage, there seems to be a book about it [1], published by Universidad de las Américas Puebla. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neotia University

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4 since it was a soft close, but no indication of notability. This is a private university. Star Mississippi 15:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and India. Star Mississippi 15:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Universities established by statute have always considered to be notable. Er. Manoj Roy (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not copy paste other editors' arguments. Star Mississippi 15:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, indeed, this argument, made in the last AfD was refuted there too. This private university needs to meet WP:NORG - and it doesn't. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it wasn't refuted at all. Please try not to misrepresent discussions. Precedent counts at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, that wrong-grammatical-voice argument was rebutted quite thoroughly at the last AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagreement is neither refutation nor rebuttal. It's merely disagreement. What on earth do you mean by "wrong-grammatical-voice"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It means exactly what it says; and your argument very much was rebutted, in both its erroneous claim and its nonexistent policy basis. It just has been, yet again. The first time it was rebutted was about 20 years ago when the community heavily pushed back against the GRider sockpuppet's "schoolwatch". Indeed, the GRider sockpuppet xyrself was one of the loudest voices claiming that things weren't going the blanket notability way in actual practice. Uncle G (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: This university is a reputed institution of West Bengal. Er. Manoj Roy (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You may not !vote multiple times. I have struck the duplicate. Star Mississippi 17:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But not actually an in-depth independently documented one, as it seems that it's mainly documented through press releases. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy missed Harshavardhan Neotia as a possibility in the previous AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this as I happened across this AfD. If you wanted to ping me, you should us {{U|Sirfurboy}} - although beware pinging people to AfD discussions unless you ping all the previous participants, as that could be considered canvassing. In any case, there was no ping here, so no problem, and I guess, judging by your extensive experience, that was the way you intended it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harshavardhan Neotia, the founder. If there is anything to say about this venture, it should be said there as one of Harshavardhan Neotia's businesses. As per the previous AfD, this needs to meet WP:NORG as a private educational business. It does not. There is only promotional information and no secondary sourcing - certainly nothing at WP:ORGDEPTH. Failing agreement to redirect, this should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harshavardhan Neotia. Fails to meet WP:NORG. RangersRus (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Universities established by statute have almost always been considered to be notable. Clear precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per the discussion in the previous AfD when you made this argument, the idea that we use the precedent of previous outcomes has been rejected by the community. The SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC close made the point: Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community. And even if we did follow precedent, this same university article was previously deleted (and is not alone), so we do delete these, and the precedent is that we did delete this one. When do we delete them? "Almost always ... considered to be notable" is actually correct. Usually a university meets the appropriate notability guidelines, because they are big and important organisations that people write about. Almost always, perhaps. But when the notability guidelines are not met (NCORP being the appropriate SNG for this one), then such articles are deleted. It is the notability guideline that matters, and not what we did for different pages on different subjects. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete: It should be redirected to Harshavardhan Neotia if not deleted. The information provided in the article seems to me solely promotional and lacks independent sources. Sethi752 (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asle og Alida

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

Article about an upcoming new opera, not reliably sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, operas are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them -- but this is "referenced" solely to the self-published website of the opera company that's producing it, with no media coverage or analysis about it shown at all.
No prejudice against recreation later in the year if and when it does have adequate GNG-worthy coverage to satisfy inclusion standards, but a single primary source is not sufficient for it to already have an article now. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Norway. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I found this news article and also this. Both are in Norwegian, for which I can only read a few cognates. Ping me if more information comes up. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a Nobel prize-winning librettist and notable composer, I don't think we need a crystal ball to know that there will be SIGCOV of this opera, whether it's a success or a flop. Its premiere is 5 days away - why delete it when it can be expanded and have more sources added in less than a week? The NRK source found by Bearian could be added now; the other source is paywalled for me. (No, I can't read Norwegian - I just put it in Google Translate, which is good enough to provide the info that it was commissioned by Eivind Gullberg Jensen, the current director of the Bergen Opera, and Frank Kjosås will take the title role, despite never having sung in an opera before ...) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This opera premiered at the second largest opera house in Norway, the libretto written by a noble prize laureate and a Grawemeyer award composer… 158.248.40.59 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin (Sin City)

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

Reception is limited to a single listicle. Fails WP:GNG. Per ATD-R, could redirect to List of Sin City characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With less than 50 links coming into this article I would argue there's no point to a redirect either; this is just an average sidekick villain. Nathannah • 📮 22:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roark family#Kevin – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Svartner, this article has been deleted so is not a suitable redirect target page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the comment the article still exists. It can all be redirected to the List of Sin City characters. Svartner (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, except is that list encyclopedic? But for as long as it exists, sure, that's a valid target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One proposed redirect target has been deleted. Redirect elsewhere or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. A cursory search finds at least one indexed article discussing the character at some length, although it is not clear to me whether this was peer reviewed. It would be somewhat surprising if there is not more literature. BD2412 T 03:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:GNG. Notability has nothing to do with the state of a page. Inviting the nom to make less nominations and do better BEFORES. Thank you. Added a few things; more coverage exists, feel free to add it. -Mushy Yank. 19:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your added sources are almost entirely Wikipedia:VALNET properties, which do not contribute to notability. Additionally, WhatCulture is unreliable per Wikipedia:WHATCULTURE. If this is all that can be turned up from a BEFORE I do not see there being much notability for this character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:32, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Omelete is Brazilian. Tribute (magazine) is Canadian. Are they connected to Valnet? I don't think so. Another article is mentioned by another user above. Also unconnected to Valnet. Feel free to add other sources if you prefer and note that regarding VALNET: "However, opinions presented in editorials or list entries that satisfy WP:SIGCOV may be used sparingly to augment reception where notability has been established by stronger sources." The 1st concern of the nominator was "Reception is limited to a single listicle." I've expanded it. The second concern seems addressed as well imv. Feel free to remove what you wish. I might add more but there are so many character-related AfD nominations at the moment (:D) that I have no time to improve all concerned articles. -Mushy Yank. 16:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a source from Omelete in the article, nor above. The source noted above by BD2412 is also a contest submission by an undergrad student, as noted on the contest's webpage. I doubt a source published by a student can be considered reliable, especially since it hasn't been widely cited. That leaves Tribute, which is a short blurb, and from a listicle at that. A brief mention of its impact on Wood's career can be slotted into List of Sin City characters at Kevin's section. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are: https://www.omelete.com.br/filmes/sin-city-elijah-wood-lembra-teste-simples; https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/35254673.pdf ; added a couple of things to page. Meets GNG imv. Other things exist but no time. -Mushy Yank. 16:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, just realized I never replied. The first one is about the same as Tribute in terms of its coverage; at a glance the paper looks like SIGCOV, but one source and a mention doesn't really justify a split in my view. This is content better covered at the list alongside other characters from the series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added VARIOUS other sources (and they are much much more than "a mention") since your reply and I disagree. -Mushy Yank. 10:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 10:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, it's difficult to see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Fish

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

This article fails WP:GNG WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As much as I'd love this to be the same person [2], there is nothing about this athlete to be found. The name seems rather common. Fishmonger named Joe Fish would be perfect, but not notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable with coverage such as this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no SIGCOV. Jay Cubby 01:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the presented sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I did, and I don't see how those constitute sigcov. Jay Cubby 02:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The first is over 200 words devoted just to him, while the second is over 350 words – that's sigcov. Further, he's a medalist at the world championships, Pan American Championships and Goodwill Games. I don't see why multiple pieces of demonstrated significant coverage (and probably more we haven't found, given the common-ness of 'Jon' and 'Fish') for someone with clearly significant accomplishments would not be sufficient to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Is Olympedia a reliable source? It appears to be a wiki from what I can tell. The second source appears to be WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It houses content formerly hosted by Sports Reference and, per the article, editing "is restricted to about two dozen trusted academics and researchers who specialize in Olympic history." BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks Beanie. While my search on newspapers.com didn't reveal much more about Fish, I think that there is enough here to keep, although I'd recommend a redirect to Rowing at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed pair as a WP:ATD to deletion should the consensus be not to keep this as a standalone article. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with BeanieFan11, article passes WP:GNG and also WP:NSPORTS. He was in the Olympics and won medals in important international events like World Championships and Pan American Games. This kind of result normally makes the athlete notable. Also, there is at least one newspaper article that talks in detail about him, which shows WP:SIGCOV. Pridemanty (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Real Communist Party of India

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

I created this article back in 2004, when online sourcing was more scarce than today. So to recap, in the 1991 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election and 1991 Assam Legislative Assembly election three candidates appears in election results from the Election Commission of India as candidates of the RCPI, Real Communist Party of India. Looking at the constituencies, there is clearly a linkage to the Revolutionary Communist Party of India. This is the same year as two different Revolutionary Communist Party of India appears in ECI records - RCPI(Rasik Bhatt) and RCPI(Gouranga Sinha). See [3], [4]

The supposed Real Communist Party of India (listed as RCPI) candidate in the Santipur Assembly constituency, Asim Ghosh, was clearly Left Front-supported. But nowhere is there any mention of the Real Communist Party of India having joined the LF. If the Real Communist Party of India was a separate LF member or ally, that should have come up in CPI(M) media (like the memoirs of Jyoti Basu, for instance). Notably Santipur had been held by Bimalananda Mukherjee of the Revolutionary Communist Party of India in the 1987 election.

The work Election Results of West Bengal: Statistics & Analysis, 1952-1991, compiled by the CPI(M) West Bengal State Committee and arguably an authoritative source on all issues on the LF states that Asim Ghosh in 1991 was a Revolutionary Communist Party of India candidate.

Today I encountered copies of the Mizoram Gazette from 1989 and 1991 which includes ECI party registration listing. The registered Real Communist Party of India has its address at the home of a K. Kvankata Subhaiah in Kovur, Nellore district. The listing also includes registrations of RCPI(RB) and RCPI(GS) with addresses in Calcutta.

It's very likely that the Kovur-based Real Communist Party of India had nothing to do with the Revolutionary Communist Party of India. Presumably it was a one-man outfit. Presumably the listing of the 3 candidates as 'RCPI' rather than RCPI(RB) or RCPI(GS) candidates by ECI in 1991 would have been an error. There have been other such cases, such as the mix-up between Biplobi Bangla Congress and Bharater Biplobi Communist Party in earlier election.

The Mizoram Gazette copies also mentions a 'Communist Party of India (Realism)' based in Calcutta. Perhaps the moniker 'Realist Communist Party of India' originates from a mix-up with that party. Soman (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could just PROD this. It doesn’t need to come to AfD. Mccapra (talk) 07:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- With a PROD, you'd have no means of fleshing out the rationale for deletion. I'm not really expecting a lot of debate here, but without the deletion rationale documented it could occur that the article be recreated by someone making the same assumption as I did back in the days (speculating that RCPI and RCPI(RB) were separate parties in West Bengal in 1991). So in the longer run, doing this via AfD might be more time efficient. --Soman (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Party of British Columbia

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

Absence of reliable, in-depth coverage of both the 2001–2009 party, which this article's scope was originally limited to, and the 2023–present party, details of which were added after Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023) was deleted following a discussion (thus an attempt to circumvent the deletion process). Both parties were insignificant in the provincial elections they contested in, garnering less than a thousandth of a percent of the popular vote and barely exceeding 1 percent of a riding's vote in their best results.

The sources cited for the 2023 iteration of the party focus on the anti-SOGI advocacy of the party leader as one part of the much wider anti-SOGI movement in Surrey, British Columbia. The party is not covered in-depth nor the focus. Yue🌙 23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 23:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~or Draftify (ATD) only if COI issues are resolved.~~ The article really needs a "Do OVER". Everything in the "Election results" section was deleted as a BLP violation. Concerns: The article was previously deleted. Although created by Kevintoronto, 28.3% of the content was edited by Amrit.Birring. There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest. Draft:Freedom Party of British Columbia 2023 has been submitted to WP:AFC, which will likely suffer the same issues as it has been declined publication several times. NOTE: The subject does have some notability. A minority party can create a conundrum in those political circles. The party and apparent COI editor did show up with candidates and results in Surrey North, Surrey-Newton, and likely more. The party has a platform and, as of March 2025, was listed among "Registered Political Parties". For inquiring minds. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I removed "draftify". The sources: I could not find significant and independent reliable sources, that at least is "mainly" about the "party that was". My comments above accidentally crossed up the defunct party with the 2023 party. While a defunct corporation can be temporarily "revived" (under certain conditions), no sources show that a defunct political party can be revived. The party, which will inevitably involve names of living persons, requires better sources for compliance.

Current sources:

1)- Magher, Jennifer is a non-English source that is about Counter-protesters for LGBTQ+ rights and opposition protesters demanding the removal of policies that integrate sexual orientation and gender identity into B.C. schools.
2)- Thayarapan, Arrthy is more about "Opponents of sexual orientation and gender-identity policies bring Surrey school board meeting to halt"
3)- [a] more about clashes, [b] "Petition filed to recall Surrey MLA Rachna Singh", [c] "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
4)- Bower, Angela, "Protesters clash in Surrey over SOGI in B.C. schools"
5)- Burns, Anna, "Saturday’s anti-SOGI protest in Surrey was a missed opportunity to educate, says Surrey teacher" more protests and a missed opportunity.

The creating editor might have missed that this is a political piece. This, in my opinion, places it in the middle of What Wikipedia is Not. "NOT" a place for promotion, advocacy, place to right great wrongs, a place to advance political causes, a newspaper, and certainly not a political battleground. Such articles must be written neutrally. While a political pundit could attempt to argue away some of these, it only takes one to justify removal.-- Otr500 (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I didn't even catch the possible COI edits. Seems to me like the article for the 2023–present party was deleted after a discussion (as noted above) and the article's creator (possibly the leader himself), just moved some of the content to this nomination's article, which was originally just about the 2001–2009 party. As you pointed out though, most of the existing sources are about the political protests relevant to (but not focused on) the leader of the 2023–present party. Remove that and all the COI edits, and you're left with nothing of significance for either iteration of the party name. Yue🌙 22:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted two inappropriate closes by an IP editor. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aydoh8, Thank you. You are right about nothing being left if all the problematic sources and edits were deleted. I dig pretty deep, trying to prove that an article has merit to remain. My laptop was getting old and would bog down after sometimes opening three browsers and around 40 to 60 tabs, so I purchased a new PC. I removed the ATD not just because of the COI (an issue and the user has had previous notification), but I agree there appears to be some side-stepping. I didn't dig into any COI timelines. Some people don't know. If someone has been advised and made edits, it is usually caught. There is a Username policy and an organization leader, not even counting if they are an SPA, might end up with someone curious looking at the "User creation log" unnumbered (Bulleted) #4. Whew! Since I am not an Admin, I will bail out of this before I get a migraine. Again, thanks. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature as an AtD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not see a benefit in redirecting to that list article because there's no content there. List items don't have to be notable, but redirects should be to some kind of meaningful content, otherwise there's nothing for a reader to read after they click the link / search up the topic. Yue🌙 20:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a formerly registered political party which ran candidates, ergo notable. This is the sort of topic which our readers have a right to expect a serious encyclopedia project to cover. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A political party is not inherently notable because it existed and ran candidates (WP:ORGSIG). Wikipedia is not a database for minor political parties and candidates. The first criteria of the general notability guideline is "Contain[s] significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." I argue that this article should be deleted because neither party that used this article's name had or has that kind of coverage. Yue🌙 05:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also worth noting again that all the sources mentioned in this current discussion are about the 2023 iteration of the party name, whose article was deleted after an earlier AfD for similar reasons, then possibly the party leader himself added his party's details to this article, which was about another non-notable party that existed from 2001 to 2009. Thus, the discussion to delete the 2023 party's article was already had despite the bulk of this discussion being focused on it, and the deletion of the 2001–2009 party's article (which this article was until recently) is the one that hasn't been had yet. At least the 2023 had trivial mentions in routine election cycle coverage; the 2001–2009 party has no existing sources at all. Yue🌙 05:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I looked around some more. The article fails Notability --and-- THERE ARE BLP issues with a poorly sourced, actually unsourced article. The sources are not about the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, it's looking like No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Ningkai

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

Making the global final on its own isn't enough to make the subject notable if he doesn't already have in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. A google search doesn't yield any coverage of him, though perhaps he is gaining local coverage in China as a result of making a global final in his home country. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Made it to the final in the top event of his sport. Several good sources. He is the top of his sport with a World Championship final. WP:GNG applies. As well as point #7 at wikipedia:NTRACK which makes him notable within Wikipedia:Notability (sports).BabbaQ (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just cleaned up the article a bit. I'll withdraw my nomination if you can find the WP:THREE best sources demonstrating his notability. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any results for this person in my searches, no sources at all. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not good This is a 1 line mention, this and this are databases. This is a results listings. We need indepth third party sources which is lacking here. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the analysis of LibStar. JunkBorax (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... if I were to guess why no one can find "[any] sources at all", I'd say its probably because he's Chinese, and they don't use English script in China, and it seems no one has looked for sources using whatever his Chinese name may be... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard can you find any sources? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. The sources I found were the same as those already listed by other editors in this discussion. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, asking for a relist. As opposed to so many others, this guy is actually a competitor on the international elite level. The article has been expanded as well. Though only one of the Chinese sources look in-depth, we should take some time to look for even more, as well as the above commenters weighing in on the expansion. Geschichte (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for Chinese sources, I couldn't find any sigcov. Sources mostly focus on his participation at the World Athletics Indoor Championships in Nanjing, where he placed 14th. [5][6][7][8] None of these are really enough to count as sigcov and I don't think he meets any of the NATH criteria. Toadspike [Talk] 09:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on my expansion using new sources I found. Note that almost all of the above comments were made before the new sources were found, and while I respect User:Toadspike's comment I am not sure if they understood that the above !votes were made before the expansion.

The SINA article goes far beyond the subject's participation at the world championships, going in detail about his life since age 11. Subject also has a long history of notable performance before the World Champs this year going back over nine years, as detailed in the article. Subject is at the peak of his career and was only one second off the Chinese record, and I would expect that several more pieces in will be written about him following the 2025 Diamond League season which begins in China this year. Based on his regional medals I think there's definitely more than what I've found – Google is banned in China so I feel like a fool trying to search his name on Google and expecting relevant results, but even given that major caveat I think we've been able to construct a WP:BASIC-compliant article so far. --Habst (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that article is indeed very good...I can't let the predicting the future slide, though – we have to decide now whether he is notable based on sources that exist now, and the state of the article is irrelevant to his notability. If you have any more sources up your sleeve, though, I'd be happy to take a look. Toadspike [Talk] 15:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - The article have been improved since nomination. And the sources in the article now establishes notability. BabbaQ (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I completely disagree; the current version of the article does not establish notability. None of the citations in the article are significant enough to count towards the GNG. We have one (1) source with significant coverage and it's not included in the article yet, putting us very far from a WP:HEY. Still no-one has been able to explain how a 14th-place finish meets any NATH criterion. And, to my astonishment, not even Cunard was able to find more sources. I am unstriking my delete !vote. Toadspike [Talk] 21:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the great rescue work done by Habst. The newly-found Sina.com source is excellent and indicates notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that participants can review newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: at the very worst, the outcome should be draftify which is the preferred outcome when a person who looks somewhat/semi-notable might become even more notable in the next 6 months. That means until 1 October 2025, covering the entire 2025 season in the sport of athletics. Geschichte (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aisera

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

Appears to fail WP:NCORP. Amigao (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tweedledum and Tweedledee (comics)

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

Minor villains in the Batman comics. A search yields only one small hit from Bleeding Cool, which is largely a plot summary of an appearance of the characters, with no other significant coverage beyond trivial mentions of the characters' existence. No indication of notability, and a failure of WP:GNG. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: T in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman villains where the characters already have an entry. Rhino131 (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge, per WP:ATD. The sources only provide WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, which isn't sufficient for the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Batman villains. They may not be notable in themselves, but here we have at least some (secondary) sources which could improve the target as compared to a pure redirect. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Batman family enemies, without prejudice against a selective merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several suggested Merge targets. And List of Batman villains is unsuitable as it is a Redirect, not an article. For those editors who argued for it, please check links first before proposing them and what is your second choice?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Batman family enemies per above. As that is where the redirect for List of Batman villains links to, I assume the two users who listed that in their recommendation meant the same. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, exactly, that's the target I was looking at. Daranios (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Descent Into Madness (EP)

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

The only coverage I could find on this album is already present in the article, and I'm not convinced that's enough for notability. Half of the sources are routine news coverage, which isn't typically counted toward notability unless there's an overwhelming amount of it, and the other half are reviews from websites which I'm not convinced of the reliability of. Boolin Tunes maybe has potential, but I'd need to see it discussed first, while New Transcendence and Metal Noise are both blogs with very few writers and no evidence of an editorial policy or anything else that makes a proper publication reliable. If, at best, there is one reliable review for this album, I don't believe the subject is notable, and you can understand why I redirected it in the first place and think that it should remain a redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I added more notable sources, would the article be allowed to remain? Doomed Shadow (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what the sources are. If it's more routine news coverage then probably not (oftentimes, reporting on album announcements/single releases are just based on press releases and don't contain much original reporting, so they aren't highly valued in terms of reliability). If there are reviews I missed, or anything else based on original writing, then there's a better chance. Some of that could also come out in the future; a huge amount of an album's notability comes about around the time of its release, but there are also opportunities later on such as year-end lists or late chart appearances. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that no additional edits have been made since my nomination (aside from me removing a category immediately after). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Nationalist Party of British Columbia

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

Fails WP:ORG: Defunct provincial political party with insignificant results in the one election it contested (less than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote) and, accordingly, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. This article was deproded by Bearcat in 2010 with the explanation "Any political party that's run candidates in a provincial or federal election is notable; election isn't getting proper coverage otherwise," but this is not a proper reading of notability policy. Yue🌙 21:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 21:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor short-term party with no significant, in-depth coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG rules. Just because the party joined one provincial election does not make it automatically notable. There is no deep coverage from independent and reliable sources, only some small mentions of vote count. A political party that received less than 0.01% of the votes and has almost no presence in media or public discussion is not enough for its own article. Per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia is not to keep every group that existed only for a short time and had no impact. — Pridemanty (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

British Columbia Democratic Alliance

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

Fails WP:ORG; the article topic was an unregistered party formed from a merger between several minor parties with insignificant results in contested elections. This party specifically never participated in an election. Accordingly, a search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 21:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 21:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor short-term party with no significant, in-depth coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Moderate Democratic Movement

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

Fails WP:ORG; the article topic is a defunct provincial political party with insignificant results in the one election it contested. Accordingly, a search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Yue🌙 21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 21:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Minor party with no significant coverage to establish notability. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Bus

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NCORP. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Protobowl above. Lacks WP:SIGCOV XwycP3 (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham and Onesimus of Kyiv Caves

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

There was no such "duo of Saints" akin to Peter and Paul ~~or Marx and Engels~~. There were two monks Abraham the Laborious and Onisim of the Caves at Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. --Altenmann >talk 22:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Nomination claims a probably unprovable negative fact, which is hard to defend as a reason for deletion. Both seem to be celebrated as saints in some orthodox churches by quick online search. Article may still fail notability, but not for the reasons given. Per WP:Preserve I would recommend keeping the article unless better reasons for deletion can be given. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have to prove anything, the WP:BURDEN is on the article writers. Yes, both are celebrated, but both have their own pages and there is no sources that present them as a Saint duo. There are two dozens or more venerated ones from The Caves, and I (and y'all) have no idea why this pair was made up. --Altenmann >talk 02:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. There is also no information to WP:Preserve. --Altenmann >talk 02:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Bergeron

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

I can’t find any sources that aren’t connected to the subject. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Authors. ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 22:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
? What does the nominator think about the subject's citation record? It appears to contain hundreds of sources that are not connected to the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Gabiro Guitar

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

Article subject does not show up in any online searches except for YouTube and on social media accounts. All 13 of the article sources are from https://newtimes.co.rw, and none of them support the article text in any way—each is simply a puff piece listing upcoming concerts or providing promotion for various artists. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Rwanda. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Also some coverage here [9] and [10]. With what's now in the article, have enough for a basic article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexphone & the Lonely Wave

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

This film does not satisfy WP:NFILM. The article itself has no sources and a Google search only yields database websites and pirated copies of the film. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Thai films#2003: released at a time when online sources were not the rule - sources https://movie.kapook.com/view237630.html (other equivalent lists exist); https://entertainment.trueid.net/detail/y2w5w99dOmGV https://www.siamzone.com/movie/m/1339 Alt title: The Girl Next Door -Mushy Yank. 10:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RodBez

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

Fails WP:NCORP as the sources only provide trivial coverage, primarily comprising recycled press releases and fundraising notices. Yuvaank (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, India, and Bihar. Yuvaank (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. While RodBez has received some media attention, much of it focuses on the founders' personal stories and their appearance on Shark Tank India, rather than providing in-depth, independent coverage of the company's operations or impact.Pridemanty (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Douglas (actor)

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've had roles -- the notability test isn't in listing acting roles, it's in showing that they've received WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about them and their performances. But the roles listed here are all minor supporting and guest roles, and the article is referenced entirely to primary sources and directory entries (which are not support for notability) rather than any evidence of GNG-building coverage about him in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial roles and no coverage in RS, this is not a notable actor. I don't see any sourcing in the article we can use and i don't find any either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "Award" appears to be for an ensemble of some sort, but the award doesn't seem notable either, and being one in a group of many isn't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article's subject does not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and therefore is not notable. He only played very minor roles in some films. Cyrobyte (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, current sources are unreliable and are only for trivial, minor roles, leaving the main content unsourced. Ripe with WP:BLP violations. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 00:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t think this article meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. The actor only did small and minor roles, and there are no strong independent sources that talk about him. Most links are primary or just listings, which do not show notability. Without good coverage in reliable sources, he is not notable for a Wikipedia article. — Pridemanty (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Ur Rehman IIPL

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

Seems non-notable. Looking at search results, all I see is Linkedin, the official IIPL website (IIPL is the organisation he runs), and a few unreliable sources. Created by a user with a clear COI regarding the topic. Plant🌱man (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out and highlighting the conflict of interest (COI) guidelines. I appreciate Wikipedia’s commitment to maintaining neutrality, verifiability, and reliability in all articles.

I acknowledge the importance of avoiding undue influence when contributing to topics directly related to an individual or organization. My intent is to ensure that information about Atta Ur Rehman IIPL remains accurate, neutral, and supported by credible sources. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia’s COI policies and, moving forward, I will:

- Refrain from directly editing the article and instead suggest edits on the talk page using reliable third-party sources.

- Ensure full disclosure of my affiliation when discussing potential edits, in compliance with Wikipedia’s transparency guidelines.

- Avoid promotional content or external link spamming, ensuring that all suggested content aligns with Wikipedia’s standards of neutrality and verifiability.

If there are any specific concerns regarding the existing content, I would be happy to address them and collaborate in improving the article based on independent sources. Please let me know how best I can proceed while respecting Wikipedia’s policies.

Best regards, Atta Ur Rehman IIPL (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the COI disclosure. However, the main thing about this article is that it is not covered in-depth by independent, reliable sources; i.e., it does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:NBLP. Looking online, I could only find the IIPL website, Linkedin, YouTube, and 1 2 3 these three. The last three I listed have no significant coverage of the person in question, and the IIPL website, Linkedin, and YouTube are not considered reliable sources. I hope this helps. Plant🌱man (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your clarification sir. I have added some reliable news sources. Moreover, the article will updated from time to time. Looking forward your guidance in this regard. Atta Ur Rehman IIPL (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your sources have been removed because they are "not in line with WP:EL". Please add another source. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 14:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atta Ur Rehman IIPL I would like to point out that notability isn't something that you can change. It's an inherent property of the subject; if they are notable, then they will have multiple independent, reliable sources about them. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case here, meaning that if the subject isn't notable, there is nothing a person can do to "make" them notable. Plant🌱man (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: GPT-zero shows 100% AI-generated text. Please tell us in your own word ~~what you can do to improve this article~~ why the article shouldn't be deleted. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage that I can find, the only hit is this [11], likely about another person. The sourcing in the article isn't helpful either in showing notability, Crunchbase and the first source aren't RS. The other two are name drops. Oaktree b (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WinAPIOverride

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

Reason Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only finding mentions in lists of computer forensics tools; not any in-depth on-point independent documentation of this specific software. There just isn't the sourcing to be had, apparently. As is so often the case for software articles that reach AFD, the article is badly sourced to just the creator's software project page, externally linked twice. Uncle G (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am only finding blog posts and links to software downloads. Only one blog post as independent coverage, which is not significant coverage.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This subject is mentioned in trade publications that pertain to software, along with multiple forums. It does not seem to be given in citations that would qualify under WP:RS. desmay (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Landing, Illinois

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

Appears to be a river landing, a place for docking boats, not a community. –dlthewave ☎ 19:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 19:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't confirm if the community is indeed real or not, but regardless there is not nearly enough coverage of this place to warrant an article. NGIS is a database source, and Hometown Locator isn't reliable. Digging through Newspaper Archive, I'm finding no results for a "Turner Landing" in this location either, instead nearly all hits are for a "Turner's Landing" near Cairo. Jordano^5³ 21:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It will — or at least should — surprise exactly no-one that a river landing was exactly what this was: Turner's Landing in fact, as marked on early 20th century maps, as listed in Mississippi River Commission reports and mid-19th-century USACE benchmark listings, and as listed in Louis Adam's 1877 Directory of Points and Landings on Rivers and Bayous. See Landings on All the Western and Southern Rivers and Bayous at the Internet Archive for example. The cherry on top in this case is that this was not originally claimed to be a populated place. The 1980s GNIS listed this as a "locale" not as a "ppl". This is more "unincorporated community" lies that Wikipedia has been telling the world. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain Creek, Illinois

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

Not to be confused with Fountain Creek Township, Iroquois County, Illinois. Maps show only a rail siding with a grain elevator, and newspaper articles cover the nearby creek not this location. –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't seem to find coverage of the community, just the township and the creek itself. Information on the page is uncited, Newspaper Archive was of no help. Jordano^5³ 22:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was no village within the Township at least at the time of the Beckwith 1880 county history. A quick check of the railway guides, after a glance at the old maps, reveals that this was a stop on the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad in the 1930s and 1940s. Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Dowling's 1968 History of Iroquois County at the Internet Archive reveals that the only two actual villages in the Township were Claytonville and Goodwine. Fountain Creek was a grain elevator, and railroad stop. Uncle G (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sushma Kharakwal

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

Being a mayor is not automatic notability. Fails NPOL, and no multiple SIGCOV coverages from multiplr independent reliable sources, fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Have added more refs. The BLP has one indepth citation on her by a reputed and reliable, secondary source. There are other enough sources, which are not just election listings and she easily passes WP:GNG. Davidindia (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidindia: Please cite the reliable source with in-depth coverage of her. I am unable to find that. GrabUp - Talk 08:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref. from Hindustan Times. Davidindia (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This coverage is related to the mayoral election and provides very little information other than the election, but to meet GNG, we need multiple independent reliable SIGCOV coverage of her. GrabUp - Talk 08:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. Her history with the party for over 35 years, about her children and their employment, her husband army stint, rank, her other designations in the party, a whole lot of her bio is there including her degree, college name etc. Please read the citations properly. Read the HT hindi version also. Also please check the guidelines on notability... WP:SIGCOV, say that the articles need not be about her but at least one or two paras about the subject. Also a lot of controversial coverage exists in vernacular press, but since it is BLP, I have not added them. Will add em in a while! Davidindia (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidindia, @Er. Manoj Roy: I want to repeat, all these coverages are because of the election event, so this is totally under WP:BIO1E, if you can find significant coverages beyond this election, please cite here. GrabUp - Talk 16:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GrabUp, The BLP clearly passes WP:NPOL, WP:POLITICIAN which says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Also WP:BIO1E is not applicable here, it says, "...the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered." A Mayor's election is a significant event in itself, like the election of an MLA. Or else, over 3000 pages created for MLAs after just one election would have been dismissed under WP:BIO1E. Per say, Mayors are not entitled for a page but if they have WP:SIGCOV, they pass general notability: SIGCOV says: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. HT, and this HINDI have indepth coverage. This one in Week is a bylined article where her interview was published. This is not election news... it is almost two years after the election (Not one event) and there are many refs exist in vernacular press. I have good faith in your intent as I have been following the great work you are doing. But of late, I am taking part in deletion discussions, as I feel many editors are nominating articles that easily pass guidelines and just two or three editors participate in AfD and they are deleted. I have made my case and I will leave it for the Deletion Discussion to conclude as I have absolutely no personal interest in the BLP and no CoI. Iam writing this because others may mistake my arguments. thanks and happy editing! Davidindia (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Er. Manoj Roy (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Er. Manoj Roy: Can you share these multiple sources? GrabUp - Talk 11:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GrabUp, all the sources are cited in the article. You need to just check them please! Davidindia (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GrabUp: please check all references. Er. Manoj Roy (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arts Council~Haliburton Highlands

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

Arts council that fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE search, I could not find any other sources that weren't liked to the organization or a brief, trivial mention, it has got some local news coverage, but I'm not sure if that can cement notability. Not to mention a good amount of the article's tone is promotional. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Arts Council- Haliburton Highlands has received independent + detailed in local news at the very least 1 2. The events they put on in the region have also received non-trivial coverage 3. They received direct support from the Canadian government to start an ongoing symposium on performing arts in rural communities 4. News about the organization has been presented in the Toronto Star as well 5 .This coverage spans at least a decade, so it's not a small burst. Between the primary source of its website and local coverage that is sometimes included in major Canadian newspapers, it seems like the council is notable + provides a significant amount of arts programming in the Haliburton region. I vote to keep though I agree the article should be updated.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply sources 1,2,3 and 5 come up with 404 pages, are they availble on the Wayback Machine? ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open Data-Link Interface

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ODI is historically notable as part of the Netware and Mac ecosystems. --Zac67 (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate how this passes WP:NSOFT, citing which criteria and reference(s) that support your assertion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aruna Francesca Maria Gujral

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

The article fails to meet the notability criteria outlined in WP:BIO and the general notability guideline (GNG). While Aruna Gujral holds a leadership position at ICCROM, there are no reliable, independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage of her. The article relies heavily on institutional bios and primary sources affiliated with her employers (FAO, ICCROM), and her name is only briefly mentioned in the one FAO reference without in-depth treatment.

Additionally, the article appears to be autobiographical or written by someone with insider knowledge, based on its detailed and promotional tone, which raises neutrality and conflict of interest concerns. Holding a high-level position does not confer automatic notability unless there is independent, sustained coverage — which is lacking here.

Therefore, the article does not satisfy Wikipedia’s core inclusion criteria and should be deleted. Johnj1995 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manupur

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

Non-notable battle; article is cobbled together from passing mentions in various sources and padded out with the "background" and "aftermath" sections. Sources that do exist do not properly verify the content. For example, the date of 10 March 1748 is cited to a book that only says "In a battle fought near Sirhind early in 1748 Qamruddin received a fatal wound but his son Muin ul-Mulk defeated Ahmad Shah Abdali with the support of Safdar Jang." Indian campaign of Ahmad Shah Durrani is a possible redirect target, but I'm not sure it's a good one, and it may be better just to delete this. If redirected, request that the closing admin delete and redirect, as similar articles have been deleted for copyvio reasons and these are frequent sockfarm targets. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. asilvering (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree with your other nominations, I disagree with this one and feel Manupur is more relevant. I've seen more significant sources cover it, page could generally be improved though, no doubt. Here's some sources:

[12] [13] [14] Noorullah (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Just fyi, we usually use the bolded word "keep" to oppose AfDs.) -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Noorullah (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awwad Al-Sharafat

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

Declined prod based on medal in West Asian Championships. However that competition is not a "major senior-level international competition". Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Jordan. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTBASIC: Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition. 2018 West Asian Athletics Championships is a major level competition. Also has its own Wikipedia page. 109.36.238.74 (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NATH #2 states "Finished top 3 in any other major senior-level international competition (this includes prestigious small field meets, e.g., IAAF Diamond League/IAAF Golden League meets, less-prestigious large-scale meets, e.g., Asian Games, and any IAAF Gold Label Road Race that is not explicitly mentioned above)" The West asian championships does not fulfil this. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike relying on topic-specific notability guidelines in general, but if you're going to cite NATH, then NATH #1 is the prong applicable to this case. It says Finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic Games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g., European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons). Because the West Asian Championships is an international championship that includes several heats in track events (see World Athletics), the subject's silver medal fits the bill. --Habst (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not, because the West Asian Championships is a woefully minor, not a major international competition. Geschichte (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinion. Whether or not a competition is "minor" has always been dependent on regional context; over 300 million people live in West Asia and for them it's a major international competition. I agree with what you said earlier that there are top-25 World Championship athletes without articles that are higher priority, but these AfDs are time-sensitive while there is no time limit to work on those other articles. --Habst (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion I made based on new sources. Subject was covered extensively in feature-length profile pieces by 7iber, JRTV, and Jabbar Sport. --Habst (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 14:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable as demonstrated by Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage thanks to Habst. Jordano^5³ 05:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helix Tears

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

Fails WP:GNG. Many sources mention the collective only once, and the rest do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I have not found other sources on Google News that contribute to notability. More articles could likely be written about the members, but the collective itself does not seem notable. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, Canada, and Music. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything in a BEFORE, and the current revision's sources do not establish notability. 1 is an entry in a list of 13, 2 is in entry in a list of 15, 3 is only about one EP (not the group as a whole) and is from a student-run paper, 4-10 mention the group in passing, 11 does not mention the group, 12 is a YouTube video of a song, 13-14 do not mention the group, 15 is an album, 16 is a song, and 17-25 do not mention the group.

With stars jumping on these highly computerised beats with heavily auto-tuned voices, the once-stigmatised vocal correction tool has morphed from being “a tool to perfect to being used as its own medium”, in the words of Helixtears producer Babs. - ref 11

Oh, I only looked for "helix tears", not "helixtears." That still doesn't establish notability though. Anerdw (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and ref 3 is about the group as a whole

She released her first track a mere 18 months ago and quickly joined the collective Helix Tears — a growing group of rappers, singers, and producers who make music at the cutting edge of hyperpop and glitchcore. This year, Eighty has collaborated with producer and fellow Helix Tears member blackwinterwells to release two EPs: “tracing paths” in January and, on April 14, “plague town.” EternalBaile (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title may not suggest it but the content does EternalBaile (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh wait oopsie daisy it is from a student-run paper EternalBaile (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎. G5'd by User:Justlettersandnumbers (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hacktivist Vanguard

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing new, still fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Bringing it here again only for promotion. Agent 007 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and India. Agent 007 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page has been speedied as a G5. Johnj1995 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Buddha College of Engineering

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

Article seems to be entirely promotional. Fails WP:PROMO. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Engineering, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 15 March 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 11:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Single referenced is a now-dead link. Search shows only sites intended to promote schools. WP:PROMO. No evidence it meets notability criteria. — ERcheck (talk) 12:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Corteon Moore

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Awards and roles are not notable enough. Looking like more of a promotion only. Agent 007 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Canada, and United States of America. Agent 007 (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a PR release. Barry Wom (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --John B123 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable roles, this is about the best source I could find, an interview [15]. The article reads like a promotional biography, and the sourcing used isn't helpful either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Alleyne

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

The Reader from a UK plate glass university doesn't yet meet WP:NPROF. The scope impact factor of 17 is good for her career stage, but based on publications in a field known for high publication volumes. Klbrain (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Psychology. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article appears to have been created as part of an educational assignment - see here. (I looked at the article history, noticed that the creating editor hadn't edited other articles, wondered about COI, then found this explanation). PamD 10:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMIC and the creator of the article appears to be the subject herself, therefore a clear WP:COI. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 21:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damietta University

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

Article about a non-notable university that was created by one of its employees. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Egypt. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no references on wiki article and external links belong to university only Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GALAX

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

Reconrabbit prodded with the rationale, "Does not meet WP:NCORP; organization has not received substantial, independent coverage in its 30+ years of existence that I could find. Most sources are press releases or are covering Nvidia more than this group (which may get passing mention), and searching brings up a location in Virigina.", which is precisely what my searches turned up as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wen, Zhao 闻钊 (2008-05-19). "9600GT显卡深度超频" [9600GT graphics card deep overclocking]. China Computer Education (in Chinese).
  The review notes: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner软件由影驰自主研发，并随该厂的GeForce 9600GT HDMI显卡附送，暂时只适用于该显卡。打开软件的控制面板，大家会发现其界面与其他厂商的显卡超频软件颇为相似，主要提供Shader频率、图形核心频率及显存频率调整功能，前两者还可设置为非同步模式进行调整，而且幅度极大。"
  From Google Translate: "Galaxy Xtreme Tuner software is independently developed by Galaxy and comes with the GeForce 9600GT HDMI graphics card of the factory. It is only applicable to this graphics card for the time being. Open the control panel of the software, you will find that its interface is quite similar to other manufacturers' graphics card overclocking software, mainly providing shader frequency, graphics core frequency and video memory frequency adjustment functions. The first two can also be set to asynchronous mode for adjustment, and the amplitude is very large."
  The article notes: "根据笔者个人所作测试来看，在默认模式中把图形核心和内存频率提高，并把Shader频率设置为与核心频率同步，而风扇供电则保持为“Auto”模式。测试结果发现，预设频率为650/1800MHz的影驰9600GT显卡的最高图形核心超频能力为777MHz，显存则可超频到2266MHz，3DMark06测试得分由11382分提高到11715分，性能增幅为2.9%。"
  From Google Translate: "According to the author's personal test, the graphics core and memory frequencies are increased in the default mode, and the Shader frequency is set to synchronize with the core frequency, while the fan power supply remains in "Auto" mode. The test results show that the maximum graphics core overclocking capability of the Galaxy 9600GT graphics card with a preset frequency of 650/1800MHz is 777MHz, and the video memory can be overclocked to 2266MHz. The 3DMark06 test score increased from 11382 points to 11715 points, and the performance increase was 2.9%."
2. "回眸09显卡风云年度十大精品显卡全程回顾" [Looking back at the graphics card industry in 2009, a full review of the top ten graphics cards of the year] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-12-15.
  The article notes: "影驰9600GT中将版显卡采用了非公版PCB设计，使用了全封闭式电感搭配日本化工固态电容，整体做工扎实，用料非常不错。... 踏入2009年，首先值得我们记忆的就有影驰9600GT中将，这款显卡在08年的12月初就以699元的低价示人，这款显卡拥有强劲的供电配置、相当有个性的散热系统，加上默认高频以及低廉的售价，在09年的市场上就率先火了一把!以笔者的记忆，当时可谓受到众多的DIYer关注，几乎全国都出现有价无货的场面。而影驰9600GT中将在2009年的率先获得成功，除了产品的质量之外，很大程度上也要多得影驰市场运营上的成熟，与对消费者消费独到理解。而笔者认为影驰9600GT中将如果失去了一群出色的市场营销人员，那么它的确会失色不少。"
  From Google Translate: "The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition graphics card uses a non-public version PCB design, uses a fully enclosed inductor with a Japanese chemical solid capacitor, and has a solid overall workmanship and very good materials. ... Entering 2009, the first thing worth remembering is the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition. This graphics card was shown at the beginning of December 2008 at a low price of 699 yuan. This graphics card has a strong power supply configuration, a very unique cooling system, a default high frequency and a low price. It was the first to become popular in the market in 2009! As far as I remember, it attracted the attention of many DIYers at that time, and there was a situation of being out of stock almost all over the country. The GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition was the first to succeed in 2009. In addition to the quality of the product, it was also largely due to the maturity of GALAX's market operations and its unique understanding of consumer consumption. And the author believes that if the GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition lost a group of outstanding marketing personnel, it would indeed lose a lot of color."
3. "追求最高性价比超值中高端显卡推荐" [Pursuing the highest cost-effectiveness, high-end graphics cards recommended] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2009-08-03.
  The review notes: "影驰的显卡性价比一项很不错，特别是近期热卖的GTS250骨灰上将版，上市价为899元，而且还送NV原装键盘，有着738/2200MHz的核心显存频率，性价比非常好。影驰 GTS250骨灰上将版其核心采用55nm制程工艺，拥有128个流处理器，支持Phsyx物理引擎、CUDA并行运算，可以为游戏玩家提供更真实的游戏体验，性能相当强劲。制程工艺的提高，意味着产品成本的降低与功耗、发热量的降低，这无疑使得产品性价比更高了。"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX graphics cards have a very good price-performance ratio, especially the GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition, which is popular recently. The listing price is 899 yuan, and it also comes with an NV original keyboard. It has a core memory frequency of 738/2200MHz, which is very cost-effective. The GALAX GTS250 Hardcore Admiral Edition uses a 55nm process technology, has 128 stream processors, supports Phsyx physics engine and CUDA parallel computing, and can provide gamers with a more realistic gaming experience. The performance is quite strong. The improvement of the process technology means the reduction of product costs and power consumption and heat generation, which undoubtedly makes the product more cost-effective."
4. "影驰9600GT中将版" [GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition]. 电脑商情报 [Computer Business Information] (in Chinese). 2008-08-05. ISSN 1003-9082.
  The review notes: "影驰9600GT中将版采用独特的非公版设计，PCB颜色沿用了影驰出道以来管用的深蓝色。影驰这款中将版Geforce9600GT并没有因为使用非公版而降低产品规格，无论在产品PCB设计还是用料做工上都不亚于公版产品。影驰9600GT中将版采用台积电(TSMC)使用65nm工艺设计的G94-300-A1核心，其拥有5.5亿晶体管和64个流处理器及12个光栅处理器，默认核心、Shader频率分别为公版的650MHz/1625MHz。"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition adopts a unique non-public version design, and the PCB color continues to use the dark blue that has been used since GALAX debuted. GALAX's Lieutenant Edition Geforce9600GT has not lowered its product specifications due to the use of a non-public version. Both the product PCB design and the materials and workmanship are no less than the public version. GALAX 9600GT Lieutenant Edition uses the G94-300-A1 core designed by TSMC using a 65nm process. It has 550 million transistors, 64 stream processors and 12 raster processors. The default core and shader frequencies are 650MHz/1625MHz of the public version."
5. Sun, Shangwei 孙尚伟 (2008-05-28). "影驰9600gso 龙骨散热的魅力" [The charm of the GALAX 9600GSO keel cooling]. Beijing Times (in Chinese).
  The review notes: "影驰　９６００ｇｓｏ中将版是影驰将官军衔系列中比较热门的一款，采用三星１．２ｎｓ　ｇｄｄｒ３颗粒，容量３８４ｍｂ，实现５７５╱１６００ｍｈｚ的默认频率。它沿用了影驰８８００系列时代起采用的经典非公版ｐｃｂ，供电设计更加安全。来自酷冷的龙骨风格热管散热器有着比公版更高的散热效率和更低的噪音水平，是这款显卡最大的看点所在。　　"
  From Google Translate: "GALAX 9600GSO Lieutenant General Edition is a popular model in the GALAX general rank series. It uses Samsung 1.2NS GDDRR3 particles, 384MB capacity, and achieves a default frequency of 575/1600MHz. It uses the classic non-public version PCB adopted by GALAX 8800 series, and the power supply design is safer. The keel style heat pipe radiator from Cool Cool has higher heat dissipation efficiency and lower noise level than the public version, which is the biggest highlight of this graphics card."
6. "林世強博士奮發創建電競品牌專注自強熱心公益" [Dr. Lin Shiqiang works hard to create an e-sports brand, focusing on self-improvement and being enthusiastic about charity]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2018-08-26. Archived from the original on 2025-03-29. Retrieved 2025-03-29.
  The article notes: "經歷了屢敗屢戰的艱苦磨礪，林世強博士終於找到事業發展的新契機。2000年，影馳攜手全球電腦顯卡芯片製造龍頭公司NVIDIA，拓展電腦顯卡市場，影馳並且正式成為NVIDIA的核心夥伴。及至2003年，林世強博士正式推出全球市場戰略，他以創新科研為自主品牌的核心，以遊戲玩家為重心推行中高端發展路線，以「專注、多元、創新、重質」為經營理念，目前公司擁有齊全的產品線，除了主要的顯示卡外，還有固態硬碟、記憶體、主機板與鍵盤等，在業內取得良好口碑，每年逾數百萬件顯卡及電腦配件產品，遠銷至世界各地，包括東南亞、歐洲、南美洲、南非等地。"
  From Google Translate: "After experiencing the hardships of repeated failures, Dr. Lin Shiqiang finally found a new opportunity for career development. In 2000, GALAX joined hands with NVIDIA, the world's leading computer graphics card chip manufacturer, to expand the computer graphics card market, and GALAX officially became NVIDIA's core partner. In 2003, Dr. Lin Shiqiang officially launched the global market strategy. He took innovative scientific research as the core of the independent brand, promoted the mid-to-high-end development route with gamers as the focus, and took "focus, diversity, innovation, and quality" as the business philosophy. The company currently has a complete product line. In addition to the main graphics cards, there are also solid-state drives, memory, motherboards and keyboards, etc., and has gained a good reputation in the industry. Every year, more than millions of graphics cards and computer accessories are sold all over the world, including Southeast Asia, Europe, South America, South Africa and other places."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow GALAX (simplified Chinese: 影驰; traditional Chinese: 影馳) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems fairly convincing. I obviously didn't find any of these, not even on other language Wikipedia articles for the subject. If incorporated into the article it would make a good case for renoving the maintenance tenplates present. Recon rabbit 22:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Morgan (musician)

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

This has been tagged for notability for months. The common name makes it difficult, but searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage regarding this musician. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elham Bagheri

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

No plausible notability claim; early to mid-career researcher; Scopus impact factor of 7 suggests that they haven't made a singificant impact on the field yet; an Instagram post about a news article isn't a reliable source, and there's no evidence of sustained coverage. Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Klbrain (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this recent PhD with modest citations in a higher citation field. I am skeptical of GNG notability, and do not see it met by the sourcing in the current article, but am holding back from a !vote in case someone with more experience in Iranian news media comments. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Periphery III (artwork)

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

Can only find mentions and primary sources on this sculpture. The artist is most likely notable, and it was suggested to the article's creator to do an article on them, in which this could be included, but they have decided not to. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A before search reveals lots of hits for a music album by the same name, but nothing about this artwork. As noted in the nomination, the artist may be notable, but there is not an article on them to redirect or merge this with. Delete for now unless someone creates an article on the artist before this AfD closes. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roma riot in Slovakia

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

I cannot find enough in-depth information regarding this event to support WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly failed to meet WP:LASTING. Shankargb (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Porzellanikon

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

German musem that fails WP:GNG. All sources that I can find about it are just ads. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Germany. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: A general search on the web shows that the museum meets the threshold for Notability. Poor citation sources removed and new and better ones put in their place. Myotus (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Myotus. Mccapra (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Porzellanikon's designation as a state museum in Bavaria gives it clear cultural standing and recognition. Combined with coverage in Sueddeutsche Zeitung, a prominent national newspaper (WP:RS), this meets the notability criteria under WP:NORG. HerBauhaus (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Siegel

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

This biographical article does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:GNG, and I do not believe WP:NPROF is met, either. bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 11:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Inc.

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

Brand-new startup, spun off from Rivian Automotive just two days ago. All coverage is just about Rivian announcing the spinoff. No sign it meets WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Better off as a section in Rivian Automotive for now. Junbeesh (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Junbeesh. Thus far the information available that I can find is simply an announcement of a spin off. For now, sources read like coverage of an event with little detailed information about Also, Inc which makes sense given there is little info beyond its focus on electric "micromobility". A (sub)section under Rivian would be enough for now.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, no WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a wealth of significant and reliable information available. A simple Google search will reveal that. Cinaroot (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it cannot be a section of Rivian because its entirely a new company. It has its own website, mission and planned product launches Cinaroot (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Transportation, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The company does not yet have enough news coverage. References are all announcements, press releases, etc.Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maronite flag

AfDs for this article:

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

Was recently redirectly through an AfD, then recreated by the lone voice in that discussion in favor of keeping. The same issues still apply. There is zero in-depth coverage of a flag by this name. Restored the redirect and was promptly reverted, so here we are again. Pinging all the editors who participated in the first AfD: Syphax98, Red Phoenician, OwenX, Toadspike, 4meter4. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of additions since the redirect. It looks like several sources have been added. "Complete Flags of the World" is a one-sentence mention that the cedar tree has long been a symbol of the Maronites. "The orange and the ‘Cross in the Crescent’: imagining Palestine in 1929" is a good journal article, but where it mentions Maronites it is mainly focused on the cedar symbol and how it ended up on the Lebanese flag. "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?" is the same, explaining why the modern Lebanese flag has a cedar on it. "Double vision in Beirut" is a one-sentence mention in an opinion piece. Page 262 of "Encyclopedia of Stateless Nations: Ethnic and National Groups Around the World" does describe a "Maronite flag", but doesn't seem to (from my searching in the Google Books preview) spend more than a sentence describing the flag itself. "Flags and arms across the world" seems to have almost exactly the same text as "Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday?", which does mention that the Maronites used a white flag with a cedar on it but not much more. I can't search in the "National Eucharistic Congress" source and jeancharaf.org seems to be a dead link. Searching for "drapeau" in "Voyage en Orient, Volume 1: Les femmes de Caire; Druses et Maronites", the only mention about this subject seems to be the sentence "Ce sont les signes qui distinguent les drapeaux des Maronites et ceux des Druses, dont le fond est également rouge d'ailleurs." This sentence doesn't have any context and is very confusing to me – I suspect there was an accompanying image not present in the linked version. The last two sources are cited for mentions of the flag, not analysis, so I presume they contain none.

Some of these sources may already have been present in the pre-redirect version, it's hard to tell. Anyhow, I still don't think the concept of a Maronite flag has received any coverage beyond passing mentions, mostly in sources explaining how the modern Lebanese flag came to be. Thus, I still believe this should be redirected to Flag of Lebanon. Toadspike [Talk] 17:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the Wikipedia policy for dealing with this situation? Should @Red Phoenician have gone to deletion review even though the page was not actually deleted but rather redirected? Stockhausenfan (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review (DRV) is only for reviewing whether the close accurately reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, not for relitigating the issues discussed in the AfD, so it is probably not what what Red Phoenician was aiming for. Also, if the recreated page is a duplicate of the original, it can be speedy-deleted under WP:G4, but the new sources probably make this different enough that G4 does not apply here. Toadspike [Talk] 01:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volte-face

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The term has no particularized lexical content, but is merely an idiom—it describes nothing that about-face or U-turn does not, and that referent is not a real concept in political science or what have you. Remsense ‥ 论 10:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 10:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:INDISCRIMINATE – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 10:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 10:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's more structured like a Wiktionary article than one for Wikipedia, even. 2601:44:180:98B0:190B:331F:A61A:D86 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Victoria

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

Looks like an autobiography. It was PROD deleted before and now brought back with no real improvement in sourcing. Still no in-depth, independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sources are self-written articles for Longhorns Wire, with nothing independent or substantial to establish notability. Junbeesh (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin Malikov

AfDs for this article:

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

Was a soft delete through AfD last year, recently challenged. The original nom, Thenightaway's rationale was, "There is no independent reliable sourcing about the subject. They do not meet general notability requirements nor notability requirements for academics or government officials. One of many articles spammed by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijani government/elites." The resurrected article has zero in-depth sourcing, and I cannot see any indication they pass WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guul University

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

Can't find any in-depth sourcing for this private university. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator's assessment is correct. Independent search only confirms existence. No significant independent RS coverage found. • Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel da Silva Rosa

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

Not enough independent reliable sources discussing him. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only independent sources are a newspaper article announcing a lecture he was presenting about his book and a blog post from the director of the Duke University Cancer Center, not an expert on the biography of Columbus. - Donald Albury 15:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX

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

Contested draftification: non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. [16] and [17] are likely paid sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Singapore, United Kingdom, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

32-bit disk access

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

Fails WP:GNG Clenpr (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Nom's only contributions have only been deletion votes or creations with zero contribs in article space (likely not their first new account rodeo) and the subject has two sources to pass GNG. Nom also advances no argument beyond a WP cite, so they could be asking for deletion because someone cut them off in traffic and we wouldn't really know. Nathannah • 📮 18:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should try to be objective and express any concern about deleting the article, and not about other editors. 85.48.187.219 (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is subject to scrutiny for why and how they brought a deletion and is allowed to be questioned for their rationale if they're purposefully vague and do not have an edit in mainspace. And I'm going to give you a friendly reminder that we look dimly on sockpuppetry. Nathannah • 📮 22:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article are not valid references to demonstrate notability. 84.78.243.9 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, the nominator and other commenters do matter. For instance, we have a guideline WP:POINT. It certainly doesn't make it better that not only one, but three unknown people show up, the two IPs being from the same European capital city. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's a bit obscure and the article does a poor job of putting it in context. That being said there is some good information here. Probably merge into Windows 3.1 would be a reasonable outcome. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic policy of South Korea

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

No indication of notability, mostly unsourced, poorly written seefooddiet (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an essay. Poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only two sources are for content that can be categorized as trivia. The rest is badly written and some content seems unconnected to the subject. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AFD participants who do not look for sources themselves are barely doing even a third of a proper job. Three of them together show how few people do this properly. We're supposed to be double-checking, not playing follow-the-leader or looking at bad articles and taking them at face value. This is fairly obviously a stub with clear scope for both cleanup and expansion. We Keep those. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheng, Edmund Li (2022). "Extra-regional players in the Arctic: EU, China, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea". Arctic Opportunities and Challenges: China, Russia and the US Cooperation and Competition. Springer Nature. pp. 129–132. ISBN 9789811912467.
- Leksutina, Yana V.; Zhang, Jian (2022). "Interests of Non-Arctic Asian States in the Region". In Pak, Egor V.; Krivtsov, Artem I.; Zagrebelnaya, Natalia S. (eds.). The Handbook of the Arctic: A Broad and Comprehensive Overview. Springer Nature. pp. 106–107. doi:10.1007/978-981-16-9250-5_6-1. ISBN 9789811692505.
- Park, Young Kil (2020). "Boosting South Korea in a changing Arctic Council: achievements and challenges". In Woon, Chih Y.; Dodds, Klaus (eds.). 'Observing' the Arctic: Asia in the Arctic Council and Beyond. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9781839108211.
- Bennett, Mia M. (2017). "The Maritime Tiger: Exploring South Korea's interests and role in the Arctic". In Sinha, Uttam Kumar; Bekkevold, Jo Inge (eds.). Arctic: Commerce, Governance and Policy. Routledge. ISBN 9781317517504.

Point taken but mind the condescension. seefooddiet (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Motz and Bob Roth

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

Disputed draftification, here because WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral draftification. This nomination is to draftify by consensus, unless referenced sufficiently to verify notability. Fails WP:V, a key tenet of Wikipedia 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. 🇵🇸🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦🇵🇸 07:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Notability not established; article has no references. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know the nom is to draftify, but I'd actually say delete, because the author has a week to establish notability, and if they can't, then seems somewhat pointless to draftify. However, I can live with draftifying also, as long as the author agrees to put this through AfC. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At first I thought about draftifying the article as it is plausibly notable per WP:NPRODUCER #3, but then I change my mind to deletion. Even though draftification is an acceptable option per WP:ATD, I do not think that this topic will ever be notable since the only sources I could find are unreliable (interviews, passing mentions, profiles etc.). ToadetteEdit (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deleted per WP:G5 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rodolfootoya12 Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thushara Cooray

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

Fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Merely just having a few coverage in news articles for appearing in his 100th Test as a scorer doesn't demonstrate significant coverage per WP:1E. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: according to google news search this is the only news site mentioning him; so fails WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Bansal

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the cited sources provide direct and in-depth coverage (WP:NEWSORGINDIA type of sources are not useful). Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 IMC Over-50s Cricket World Cup

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

Unofficial cricket tournament that fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG for the lack of non-routine significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Africa, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, India, England, Wales, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Caribbean, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unofficial cricket tournament, fails WP:SIGCOV per nom. Vestrian24Bio 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Volk

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

Contested draftification. None of the cited sources provide direct and in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Same rationale as before, which was closed as a soft delete. The sources are not independent but consist mostly of press releases or passing mentions in routine announcements. Sources that discuss the subject are either unreliable or not independent, ultimately failing the WP:SIRS check. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, India, Tamil Nadu, and England. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The article now cites multiple **independent and reliable sources** that offer **significant coverage** of Ahimsa Entertainment. These include:
  - Independent coverage**:
- Style Vanity – a feature article, not a press release. - International Business Times – a mainstream news outlet covering the company's growing presence in overseas markets. - Chennai Vision – reports on the company’s direct involvement in international box office records. - CinemaSpice – regional film news platform covering their strategic distribution role.

These go **beyond trivial mentions** and highlight the company's significance in the Indian overseas film market. Furthermore, Ahimsa Entertainment has handled global distribution for high-profile films like Leo, Varisu, Beast, and Vendhu Thanindhathu Kaadu — all commercial blockbusters with international reach. This establishes its notability per WP:ORG and WP:GNG.
Happy to work further on improving sourcing and neutrality, but this company clearly passes notability standards. — ~~~~ Nathan2711 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Style Vanity, as described on its website, evolved from a personal blog to a beauty website focusing on Asian Beauty, tackling skin concerns, and providing informative and honest product reviews. It has no relevance in reporting about companies, films or distribution. It is likely a website used for publishing guest articles to improve SEO.

WP:IBTIMES - International Business Times is unreliable.

Chennai Vision's article is more about Vijay (actor) and Leo (2023 Indian film) than about the subject and does not have a byline.

CinemaSpice only briefly mentions the subject.
Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jeraxmoira's analysis. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt: Mega Edition

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

I don't think this meets WP:GNG or, if you want to consider it a true "event", WP:NEVENT. Literally everything about this article, while attributed to reliable sources (minus some references to Gameranx, a Valnet source, and esports.gg which is dubious), is just basic observations that this thing happened and players had the chance to win money through it, but doesn't provide any critical commentary or observations about the event besides those two things. There is no significant coverage on the subject from these sources to be found, and the article itself is just mainly pieced together by content that at its core sounds extremely trivial and unencyclopedic (why do we care that Roblox tweeted clips of YouTubers playing the event, for example). And all of these sources were published within a short amount of time, so WP:SUSTAINED isn't met either. This does not warrant a separate page, and I recommend redirecting it to Roblox. Maybe it could be deleted entirely given that there isn't much to preserve or merge here, but I'd just go with a redirect. λ NegativeMP1 06:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 06:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roblox#Events. Concur with the nominator - it's a tricky one but I think reporting on game events tend to reiterate promotional or publisher information and lack much commentary that would suggest WP:NEVENT or otherwise. The Escapist article has some interesting commentary on the event maybe not going so smoothly in the end, but the rest of the sources are iterations of the same thing: it's going to happen, it will have these games, it has a prize, and will occur on this timeframe. All of that's really coming from the publisher. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Another example of Roblox games having shoddy articles created from them just because a young Wikipedian played them and decided it would be a good idea. Absolutely no way this can be rewritten into a moderately acceptable state. MimirIsSmart (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete alright. I don't really see much point on an article about a game where you could win a million dollars. Not that I'm really old or anything, but I just don't get the hype over something like this.

Kangaroologic17721 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roblox per nom. It has enough reliable sources for a two-sentence segment, maybe less. 2601:44:180:98B0:190B:331F:A61A:D86 (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to Draftspace I might have jumped the gun with moving this article to the mainspace, but I believe we should make it a draft again. The event isn't technically over (the final battle/livestream hasn't happened) and there could be more sources published after the fact that we could use to fix the issues with the article.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Red Cross Society Central Blood Transfusion Service

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

Article lacks notability. Beside this, the information provided here is almost a copy paste from the article Nepal Red Cross Society . Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nepal. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Bednar

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

Unsourced BLP riddled with unprovable or unnecessary claims. I can't prove this player played in the NFL in the given years. A search at NFL.com and Pro-football-reference.com return absolutely nothing, which would be unusual for someone who played for 12 years (and won a Super Bowl), and results from newspaper searches between the given playing years return nothing relevant. The only source I can prove here is the early years, that he did play football, but not enough to warrant notability. The personal life section is partially true but is not mentioned in non-primary sources. Most results for Kelly Bednar in newspapers and searches are for unrelated people. Additionally, author has only created this article and has not come back to edit since. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 06:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom charlotte ^👸♥ 07:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and North Dakota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and possible G3 speedy delete as a hoax or misinformation. I can not find any information about the subject, which seems highly unlikely for a modern NFL player whose career spanned a decade. Frank Anchor 14:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this does seem like misinformation. I tried looking on databases and the internet, but it returned no results. Cydw (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newspaper archives confirm that he played high school and small-college basketball in North Dakota, but pro football? No. College football for Blue Mountain State? Come on. T. Cadwallader Phloog (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. – RossEvans19 (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This isn't a real person. Just delete ASAP.-- Yankees10 16:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above. This is probably a real person, but the claim of playing in the NFL is demonstrably false, and nothing else here comes close to meeting WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Subject does not exist, delete per WP:G3. Let'srun (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League venues

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST for a standalone list and is a case of WP:NOTSTATS. Re-creation of a previously deleted material by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Premier League venues. Vestrian24Bio 06:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 06:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my rationale at the previous nomination. No improvement whatsoever since the deletion, so I am satisfied with the previous judgement. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Amsterdam stabbing attack

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

Minor incident - no deaths. WP:GNG is dubious (consider WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS). Very unlikely to have enduring effects; if they appear the article can be restored once enduring coverage is shown to exist. We are getting really too inclusionist with minor incidents like this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Netherlands. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. By Dutch standards this is a major attack and the national and international coverage reflects that. The stabbing took place in the very heart of Amsterdam which further contributes to the interest. In the deletion rationale, nominator points at WP:SINGLEEVENT: "People notable for only one event". An attack is not a person so this does not support deletion. WP:NOTNEWS does not support deletion either: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage. The references used fall outside the domain defined by the policy. gidonb (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By Dutch standards this is a major attack" - yet no Dutch Wikipedia article? And I see this as a routine reporting on a newsworthy but unencyclopedic crime that will be forgotten by everyone in few days._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage continues. Nlwiki is not known for quality. gidonb (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

😅 very convinient explanation Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help! If you're curious, you can read more about Nlwiki's quality here or check out the ongoing coverage in major Dutch and international media. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep broadly covered, it happened in the center of big city. It's terrorist attack, to terror there no need to someone be killed. Many nations involved: US, NL, PL, BE victims, UK citizen's arrest and probably Ukrainian perpetrator; that 6 nations involved. That's international terrorism Bildete (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG and EVENT. For now the sources and event is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. Ιf it has a more permanent impact (which I very much doubt) it can be recreated. Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-TV Play

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

An attempted bold merge of the article was reverted, but rather than start a merge discussion I am starting an AfD instead due to my serious notability concerns. This article would seem to fail WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that appear to talk specifically about Off-TV Play as a feature as opposed to the Wii U console as a whole or its controllers. Looking at the sources given upon the article's creation, they are all Wii U console reviews and not much seems to have changed. Notability is not inherited; that is a core tenet of notability, so a feature does not become notable solely because the device it is on is notable. Furthermore, with devices like the PlayStation Portal, the feature cannot be said to be unique any longer either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wii U GamePad: per nom. Sources do not appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. silviaASH (inquire within) 05:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Toys. silviaASH (inquire within) 10:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourced reception section shows notability, (sources like this are in-depth, and by third party reliable sources], and the subject would be an WP:UNDUE issue to fully cover the topic at the GanePad article. Sergecross73 msg me 11:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also baffled by the nominator's comment about the PlayStation Portal. It is, at best, completely irrelevant, and, at worst, completely against their own argument, as there is RS commentary about how off tv play did it better. There's articles saying that off tv play is the Wii U's legacy even. Very misguided. Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U GamePad This is just an feature of the Wii U GamePad- not notable enough for an independent article. TzarN64 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this were just the list of games that supported Off-TV play, it would clearly be reasonable, and would not be appropriate to merge back to Wii U or other articles. That more can be added to discuss development and its reception such that it is more than just a list seems to make sense to have this as its own article separate from the console or controller. Masem (t) 17:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOURCESEXIST, please cite where the development information and major reception is. So far there has only been one cited source solely about the Off-TV Play feature. Re: Articles about the gamepad, there is already a gamepad article of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U Gamepad. This subject is almost entirely tied to its usage in the Gamepad, and is reflected in nearly all of the coverage. The bulk of arguments for keeping do not take into account Wikipedia:NOPAGE, which very strongly applies to this situation given the subject overlap, which would allow for a greater understanding of both subjects if they were to be discussed together. A separate article is not necessary in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pondicherry Premier League

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources other than WP:ROUTINE coverage; thus fails WP:SIGCOV of WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 05:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Gereidi

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

Entirely reliant on database sources, and these only supply his results at the Olympics and a birthyear. As such, there exists no sigcov in reliable sources, from what I can find. Jordano^5³ 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. Jordano^5³ 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Nations Party of British Columbia

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

Article topic fails WP:ORG. The party is defunct and achieved insignificant results in the one election it fielded candidates in (0.21% of the popular vote, less than 7% in ridings it contested).

The article was previously PRODed in 2020 but deproded by Spinningspark with the explanation: "This is more than the usual joke/personal soapbox minor party. It needs a more thorough discussion before deleting, and some evidence of WP:BEFORE". I looked through Google (general web search), Google Books, Google Scholar, and my university databases (local to BC) for reliable sources and found no in-depth coverage. The only content about the party that has survived on the web is non-in-depth public records from the provincial government (i.e. date registered, deregistered, etc.).

I found this article by a local Indigenous publisher, but the coverage does not include a claim of notability. The coverage is quite routine and is a basic breakdown of the party's ambitions. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 02:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My own (much less thorough) search for sources didn't turn up anything either. The one article linked in the nomination statement isn't enough coverage for an article on an otherwise entirely non-notable party. Toadspike [Talk] 22:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Dhari Singh

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

Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO) requires that the subject receive significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. The existing article primarily relies on routine announcements and official listings, such as his judicial appointments and transfers. These do not constitute the in-depth, independent coverage necessary to establish encyclopedic notability.The article also lacks citations from independent news outlets, academic publications, or other reputable sources that provide substantial information about Justice Singh's career, judicial decisions, or impact on the legal field. The absence of such sources violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy (WP:V), which mandates that all material be attributable to reliable, published sources. The article predominantly focuses on recent events, such as Justice Singh's transfer proposals and appointments, without providing a broader historical context or analysis of his contributions to the judiciary. This emphasis on recent events without substantial historical significance may violate Wikipedia's recentism guideline (WP:RECENT), which cautions against giving undue weight to recent developments. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies that judges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice, although the Indian state high courts are larger panels) he would qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Sreedharan

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

Wikipedia's guidelines stipulate that subjects must receive significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to warrant a standalone article. In this case, the available information primarily originates from official announcements and routine coverage, lacking in-depth analysis or commentary on Justice Sreedharan's judicial contributions. While his professional milestones are documented, the absence of substantial independent coverage suggests that the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies of living persons. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies that judges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice) he would plainly qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kattumaram (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable. concerns regarding notability and verifiability, as outlined in Wikipedia's content policies. For a film to be deemed notable, it must receive significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. While Kattumaram has been reviewed by several outlets, the depth and prominence of this coverage are limited. For instance, Asian Movie Pulse provides a review that, although positive, does not constitute the extensive coverage required to establish notability. Similarly, BollySpice.com offers a review, but its reach and influence are not substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Additionally, the film's listing on platforms like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, which include brief synopses and user-generated content, do not serve as independent, reliable sources for establishing notability. Furthermore, the article's reliance on such sources may violate Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which mandates that information be backed by reputable, third-party publications. Without substantial, independent coverage, the article does not meet the criteria set forth in Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films, making it a candidate for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Asian Movie Pulse is generally accepted for notability and Now Toronto seems reliable enough. All in all, notability seems sufficient for a stand-alone page; a redirect is warranted, absolutely (released, verifiable, notable director+actor, coverage) -Mushy Yank. 10:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

+Technically a WP:NFILM pass for another reason: screened >5 years after release (released in June 2019) https://birminghamindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and https://londonindianfilmfestival.co.uk/kattumaram-catamaran/ and the Global Indian stories source seems acceptable too.-Mushy Yank. 12:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Gurung

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

The article Simran Gurung does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the cited references provide only brief mentions rather than in-depth coverage, failing to establish the subject’s notability per WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, several sources are either primary, affiliated with the subject, or routine announcements, which do not meet the standards of WP:INDEP and WP:RS. The article also relies on repetitive sources that do not add substantial new information. If the subject is primarily known for a single event, it may also fall under the concerns outlined in WP:ONEEVENT. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is WP:SIGCOV here and here, both of which were already in the article, so I question whether sources were properly evaluated. It's enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT with plenty of coverage as is usually the case for a senior-level player for a national football team. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The BLP is about a football player, who made her Senior India debut while still being a junior player... and received substantial coverage all over India including in vernacular press. The BLP easily passes notability guidelines and WP:GNG as one mainstream newspaper, Telegraph, a reliable, secondary source published a bylined indepth article on the subject. It also passes WP:INDEP. One more popular football website has a full article on her. Even if we ignore this, there are three other reliable sources where the BLP is the main topic. It passes WP:SIGCOV, which requires "coverage to be more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources are from Telegraph, Sportstar, Ukhrul Times (a reliable and reputed small paper in the region), Sikkim Express and North East Live channel. Her events coverage spread from 2022 to 2025, the nominator must have missed it. So it is not a WP:ONEEVENT. So I added more sources for her domestic events. I urge the nominator to check the sources once again and also to familiarise with notability guidelines. Posting in good faith. Davidindia (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Sikkim. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources added by Davidindia in addition to ones identified by Dclemens1971. Canary757 (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. The article needs improvement (such as an infobox), not deletion. – RossEvans19 (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Sinha

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

While Justice Sinha's judicial roles are documented, the article lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth information about his career and contributions. The existing references primarily consist of routine announcements and official listings, which do not establish the level of notability required for a standalone article. According to Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies of living persons (WP:BIO), a subject must have received significant coverage in multiple independent sources to merit an article. In the absence of such coverage, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability (WP:V) and notability, suggesting that it should be considered for deletion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A clear pass of WP:JUDGE, which specifies that judges who have held...(for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office are presumed notable. As a justice of multiple Indian state-level high courts (the equivalent to a U.S. state Supreme Court justice, although the Indian state high courts are larger panels) he would qualify. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again precisely per Dclemens1971. Under WP:JUDGE, the subject is an automatic keep, and undoubtedly coverage exists for a person in such an office. BD2412 T 02:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Mccapra (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eluka Majaka

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

Notable director (his 75th film) and notable cast, so why are there no reliable reviews? A search in Telugu (or English for that matter) surprisingly yields nothing [18]. No reliable reviews or other reliable sources apart from the single sources already on the article. The old sources that used to be on the article and a WP:BEFORE yielded: [19] [20] [21] [22]. This is not a pre-2010 film, it is a 2016 film, hence it needs more sources.

Note several films by the same director lack articles including his immediate previous film (see the director's filmography). Note: I support a redirect to Relangi Narasimha Rao#Filmography, where the same source about this film is also there. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable cast+crew+director; coverage about production including a bylined article in The Hindu. Seems to meet WP:GNG. ~~But meets WP:NFIC as it was noted as a shift in Rao's career, marking the peak of his involvement in Kannada-language productions,~~ https://ntvtelugu.com/movie-news/director-relangi-narasimha-rao-birthday-special-62551.html ~~[it is not his first not remade-in-Kannada non-Telugu film?]~~ ~~Would clutter up the director's bio.~~ 123Telugu should imv be accepted as a source to expand reception (although maybe not to base notability upon). Redirect indeed warranted. Very opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 11:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This isn't his first Telugu film not to be remade in Kannada or that wasn't a remake.

He has three other such films like that:

Apparao Ki Oka Nela Thappindi (2001)
Preminchukunnam Pelliki Randi (2004)
Appu Chesi Pappu Koodu (2008)
Oo Antava Maava Oo Ooo Antava Maavaa (2023) DareshMohan (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will amend my comment (that was written in a very confusing way, on top of this). -Mushy Yank. 17:11, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Feierabend

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

No sources found. Fails WP:GNG and only 20 revisions done since its creation. Gauravs 51 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (changed to Keep, see below): No results in either Swiss newspaper archive. I will search for German sources tomorrow, ~~but if I don't get around to it this should be read as a !vote to delete~~. Toadspike [Talk] 21:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After searching several newspaper archives, I finally found hits in the Schwäbische Zeitung [23]. Most of it is not sigcov, simply covering exhibitions of his work and by his art group Panta Rhei (likely notable) – this has four sentences about his work and his art, this has around a paragraph about his art, this has a sentence or two. I strongly suspect that their archive, which would have covered Feierabend when he was alive, will have more coverage, but it seems like I'd need their app to access it.

The search function of the Deutscher Zeitungsarchiv is very obtuse but it seems like they don't have anything on him – not a surprise, given that their coverage after ~1950 is limited. Toadspike [Talk] 18:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the German Wikipedia article, there's a biography of him titled "Die Stille ist laut genug: Der Maler Hermann Feierabend und seine Bilder" and have an article about one of his paintings being stolen [24] (paywalled). Searching that newspaper (Südkurier) for his name in quotes, I get over 39 results. At this point, I am certain that enough sourcing exists for an article, even if I cannot access it due to paywalls. We should keep this article. Toadspike [Talk] 18:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article has no citations and I am not finding any RS to support the information presented in the article. The German Wikipedia article does not show notability. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read anything I wrote above? Although he isn't world famous, "He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" is demonstrably false [25][26][27][28]and "or won significant critical attention" is also demonstrably false (there is a book written about him). While I admit that the sources I've linked don't cover all the info in the article, there are in fact many reliable sources that cover him. I also strongly disagree with "The German Wikipedia article does not show notability" – it cites a book and a news source, which is a lot by their standards. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read what you wrote and disagree with your assessment. Multiple items in Schwäbische Zeitung does not make an artist notable, just a member of a local group of artists who exhibit in the town hall every year. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my harsh language. I think the paywalled Südkurier articles and potential coverage in the Schwäbische archives, plus the book, are enough. You do not. This is reasonable and we may agree to disagree. Toadspike [Talk] 17:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toadspike. That seems like enough coverage to be a notability pass to me, even if it is a bit hard to access at the moment. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article still does not have any references, include birth and death dates and places. Hope the closer will consider Wikipedia:BURDEN. There is nothing to create a source assessment table from, which is what I would usually do at this point. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of the article's current content is unverifiable and you may remove it; that doesn't impact notability, though. A source assessment table can't be made due to my NEXIST-style argument, but I would love to hear whether you believe the evidence I've found is enough to assume suitable independent, reliable sources exist in the real world. Toadspike [Talk] 15:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we remove the unverified content in the current article it would have no text at all. Not one word would remain. I do not think the sources you note might show notability or bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. Reading a machine translated version of the (uncited) article on German Wiki https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Feierabend one can see that it is a nice article honoring a local artist who painted as a side gig to his mechanical engineering career. His wife wrote a monograph about him.

For some reason, an editor recently translated the German article and stripped out some the the fluffier fluff and pasted into the existing stub (that they created in 2009), without any attribution.

Hope this makes my opinion clear :) Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I did not notice that the book was written by his wife, which does limit its value for determining notability. The book does retain some value, as it also contains contributions from others, like a foreword covering much of his biography by the mayor of Friedrichshafen, de:Bernd Wiedmann. That foreword can be found in the second image here – based on this image, I have rewritten the article completely to include only what I can verify. Toadspike [Talk] 15:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I do have two questions, User:Gauravs 51. why did you remove the AFD tag soon after you tagged the article? Did you change your mind about the nomination? Secondly, would expectations for this article change if it was marked as a stub article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person does not fulfil WP:ARTIST, as noted above. The third criterion is not fulfilled, as the biography was written by his wife, and the other three do not apply. WP:POLITICIAN appears not to apply either. While there are clearly a few sources available, I would lean towards simply deleting. Best, Cfrhansen (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boxabl

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

At first glance it looks Ok, but when you look deeper almost all sources are bad or primary, such as interviews, articles with too many quotations, press releases and announcements, a few SEC filings and routine news about ELon Musk buying a unit Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nominator's assessment. Several citations primarily discuss Elon Musk’s alleged purchase of a unit, which he later denied on Twitter, making their accuracy questionable. The remaining sources include SEC filings, routine news coverage, announcement, press releases, etc. Yolandagonzales (talk) 08:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very promotional in tone and likely UPE, but it is notable with references like these which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Needs stripped of the press releases, social media references, and churnalism if anyone is willing to perform the WP:HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with CNMall41 that is is promotional and likely UPE. A few references mentioned seem OK, but most references are passing mentions, press releases, churnalism. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Boxabl does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Most sources are press releases, SEC documents or small news without deep information. Many talk about Elon Musk, but WP:INHERITORG says this kind of celebrity link is not enough to be notable. The article looks promotional and COI problems. Pridemanty (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number of citations used in this article do not meet WP:RS[29][30] and include references to the subject's own website, along with links to Elon Musk's X account.[31] desmay (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "number" are also WP:CORPDEPTH which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Please tell me why the three sourced provided above in my !Keep vote would not meet those standards. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very strange that no one voting !Delete is able to refute the sources I provided. No comment on the voting history as of yet but would ask closing admin to look closely at the edit history of this AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sin City yarns

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

Unreferenced plot summary. Unlikely term to be searched for. I don't see the need to redirect this. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wholly unsourced fandom filler; the only improvement I could see outside adding sources is a link to shaggy dog story in the lede, which describes the concept of 'spinning a yarn', but this is just a wordier version of Sin City#Sin City yarns itself, which would be a proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a reasonable SPLIT of Sin_City#Sin_City_yarns. It just needs the sources. But as it has navigational interest, notability is probably not an issue. Worst-case scenario: merge it back into the main article(s). -Mushy Yank. 23:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with "navigational interest" (what do you even mean by that?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST states: " Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists." -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this one does not fulfill anything; it's just a long unreferenced plot summary of the books. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yes, it does: "Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." On top of this, see what redirects there.Hell and Back. And Booze, Broads, & Bullets.. And two other yarns. So, yes it does clearly have merit in terms of navigation. -Mushy Yank. 20:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per Mushy Yank. If the content is suitable to be kept in a larger article, I see no detriment to it being split out as a list. BD2412 T 03:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We're just going to give a mulligan to the article having no references whatsoever? Nathannah • 📮 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  And one that is nothing but a WP:FANCRUFTy plot summary... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  As if references about one the most famous and notable book series in the history of the genre were hard to find....WP:FANCRUFT is an essay and to refer to it regarding such a highly-and-universally-praised work as Sin City is not very necessary. -Mushy Yank. 20:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Leaning delete Agree this fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. If the individual books/plots are notable, they can be given their own stubs/pages and this can be converted to an actual list. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete - non-notable; Wikipedia is not a catalogue of subsubplots. And of course it's purely a coincidence that the article is wholly uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Sourced now. And easily improvable with the tons of existing sources about the set or the individual books. And no, these are no ’subplots’!!!!!! -Mushy Yank. 20:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry@Anonrfjwhuikdzz but.... ”if the invidual books are notable’?????? just inform yourself please (or simply read the page). They do have a page! And they are EXTREMELY notable.... -Mushy Yank. 20:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say Sin City series was not GNG as a whole, but individual books may not be notable enough to warrant their own page. For the books that can pass GNG on their own, write pages for them and make this page into an actual list pointing to those pages. As it stands, this "list" is a catalogue of plot summaries and not a list at all. Information about the less notable books in the series can be merged into the main Sin City article rather than being placed here. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but individual books are very notable. And, again, they DO already have a page. For the rest, I am bit confused, yes it's a list of the yarns/episodes in chronological order of publication, which gives a good outline of how the series took shape, and it includes plot and publication details. Can be improved. Will leave it at that. -Mushy Yank. 00:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chiswick Chap. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog of subplots, and this is wholly unsourced. Even if someone were to find sources for development and reception, it would duplicate the content that belongs at Sin City. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Sin City page, which is missing plot summaries. Per MOS:NOVELPLOT, "An article about a novel should include a concise plot summary...There is usually no need to explicitly cite the novel as a reference". The page is too short to require splitting. That said, there's a lot of cruft that could be trimmed. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly accept a merge of an edited version to help the main article. Nathannah • 📮 00:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The plots are missing PRECISELY because they are there as a SPLIT.... -Mushy Yank. 20:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have strong arguments to Keep, Delete and Merge but no consensus so far. And a note at the bottom of this AFD asserts that the article has changed since its nomination so editors who weighed in here two weeks ago are encouraged to re-review the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge/delete I am still leaning toward merge/delete or merge/redirect. The four "yarns" with their own pages are notable on their own. I am still questioning the notability of the remaining books. In my opinion, the added citations on the page largely point to notability of the series rather than individual books. Some, like the reference to | dark horse comics or EBSCO really only establish existence, not notability. @Mushy Yank, it would be good to include pages or chapters for the book references you've added to make it quicker for other editors to judge notability. Yarns like "Just Another Saturday Night" that were adapted for the sin city films probably deserve their own page as adaptation into major films suggests notability of the original material.
Overall my thoughts remain largely the same as they did previously: create articles for the books that meet notability guidelines, merge short summaries of remaining books to the main Sin City page, and delete this page. The table of yarns on the Sin city page should be enough for navigation to the various pages for individual yarns and this article can be deleted or redirected as appropriate.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anonrfjwhuikdzz, you have cast two separate votes which is not permitted. You can only cast one Bolded vote. Please strike the "vote" that you no longer stand by. Do this by placing this code around the vote: <s>Vote</s> looks like ~~Vote~~. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just open the 4 first sources, for example. They have a link to the page of the book with significant coverage about the topic, as a set. Which is what NLIST requires. More sources exist. Feel free to create pages for other individual yarns, that would not make this list-page less useful. (I might add the page number to the ref template when I have more time but already spent a lot of time on this). -Mushy Yank. 11:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott David Alldridge

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

He doesn't have enough proper sources to establish notability. A few sources are primary and the rest just mentions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Technology, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aurica Bărăscu

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. All I could find were mentions, but no significant coverage. Darkm777 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the subject passes WP:NOLY as an Olympic gold medalist and won numerous world championship medals as well. There's virtually certain to be coverage if the appropriate places are checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per common sense. There's some coverage such as this and this, and Bărăscu was a world champion, European champion, and Olympic champion in her sport, having a total of seven medals across the three competitions. According to ru.wiki, she was also the recipient of what seems to be the highest honor for sportspeople in Romania, arguably satisfying WP:ANYBIO as well. Most of her career took place before the prominence of the internet, and thus it is very highly likely there's further offline coverage given her very substantial accomplishments. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple search reveals citations naming the subject.[32][33][34][35] These citations, among other ones that exist, could be used to expand the stub. desmay (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kalman

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

Subject seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill architect, only noted in connection with the notable building that he designed. BD2412 T 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Massachusetts. BD2412 T 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--User:BD2412, I found some coverage for him, and I'm sure more is available. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for coverage. I was not impressed, but my opinion doesn't weigh any more than anyone else's. BD2412 T 00:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I struggled to find much on this person, too, outwith the discussions of "designed by". And I cannot find a convincing source that the Max Kalman architect in Boston and the Maxwell Kalman one in Montreal are in fact the same person. Max is not an uncommon name, no Boston source says Maxwell, and the Canadian one was in the class of 1928 (Omicron '28 says the Tau Epsilon Phi history) which would have xem not even a McGill freshman when the work in Boston in 1919 and 1922 was being done, and also graduating in xyr 40s.
    The Gazette source has the Montreal one born in 1906, not 1884, and thus graduating at a more usual age. The Gazette one is a good single source for the Montreal one, sans any Boston and Texas conflation (as those two can be connected, albeit via the memoirs of a random neighbour in Texas). A good second source on the Montreal architect, and we'd be in business, but there are just a handful of building mentions elsewhere, that I can find.
    Uncle G (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Russia, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Via a very winding and roundabout route, which Drmies found the small obscure fingerpost pointing to, which this article did not hint at in its entire 11 year history, the answer seems to be that this is a {{R from short name}} for Maxwell M. Kalman. I can find nothing documenting the 1884 Boston person at all, and the "Ancestry" WWW sites do not cut the mustard for a biography of a historical person because of the Wikipedia is not a genealogy database policy. The person actually has to be documented in some sort of actual on-point history. Even in the sources about Vilna Shul the 1884 person is just a name-check, as xe is in the Texas neighbour's memoirs too. The links in Wesley Lyng Minor and Vilna Shul are clearly excessive. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Avram

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not as clear notability as the others, but she was a world championship medalist and Olympedia includes a photo that looks recent from the Sportarad newspaper, which indicates that they likely covered her. What we have to do is find it. Its also quite likely there'd be further offline coverage, given her accomplishments took place before the internet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of countries with people on postage stamps

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

IMO fails WP:NLIST, not to say pointless: each and every country has people on their stamps. --Altenmann >talk 20:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly pointless list with no source discussing the subject (and why would they; that would be like a "list of people with spinal cords"). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the second AfD for this page. The first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on postage stamps back in 2022. The page has been moved several times: from the creation of the page in 2002 until 2015 it was List of people on stamps, then it was List of people on postage stamps until 2020, then Lists of people on postage stamps until 2022, then Lists of countries with people on postage stamps. TompaDompa (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a source for the claim that all countries have people on their stamps? It sounds believable, but I would like to see a source just to make sure. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Beside the point. I a not writing an article and I made a reasonable guess. The one who wrote the list must find sources that discuss this particular list criterion. Otherwise next thing we get List of countries with birds on stamps, List of countries with buildings on stamps, List of countries with behemoths on stamps. In other words, my major claim was "fails WP:NLIST", and no, I do not have a reference for that either. --Altenmann >talk 01:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Just for the record, this page does not start with List but Lists, i.e. it's a List of lists. I'm actually inclined to keep it under a better name. Geschichte (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Ouch. Anyway the process of getting rid of its members is underway: List of people on the postage stamps of Israel is gone, now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Sudan. --Altenmann >talk 10:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I think a deletion of Lists of countries with people on postage stamps should not pre-empt those other deletions. As long as they're there, a list of lists seems valid. Geschichte (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Lists of people on postage stamps by country and keep. It's a valid organizational list for these countries' lists rather than a topic under this title. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move and keep per Reywas92 as a navigational page/list of lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. User:Geschichte were you going to voice an opinion for a specific outcome? By the way, an AFD can not close as "Move" as that outcome, as it is renaming, is an editorial decision that is done after a closure. If this is your choice, then "vote" for Keep and then a move discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Something needs to be done here, but I'm not sure how. Please see Category:Lists of people on postage stamps. If the individuals are cultural icons, they sometimes have stamps in more than one country. Elvis and John Lennon come to mind. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Alupei

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

She has a metro station named after her in Romania, yet I cannot find anything else other than profiles, hence she does not meet WP:NSPORT criteria. Darkm777 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable with sigcov such as [36] and for being a multi-time Olympic gold medalist (WP:NOLY), world champion, and a recipient of the National Order of Faithful Service per ru.wiki thus satisfying WP:ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. Meets WP:GNG now. Gheus (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beaniefan11. Would be a high chance of more SIGCOV with 2 Olympic gold medals. Canary757 (talk) 12:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and with [37] [38] etc. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Afrăsiloaie

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Darkm777 (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another in a series of poor nominations. Passes WP:NOLY as an Olympic medalist and has coverage such as this, with there being almost certainly further coverage given her status as one of the star Romanian sportswomen in the offline era, with her also having achieved multiple world championship medals in her sport. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Homeghi

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

Does not have enough coverage to meet WP:NSPORT requirements. Darkm777 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Darkm777 (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Very clearly notable as a medalist at three different Olympics, a seven-time world championship medalist and three-time world champion, as well as a multi-time Olympic champion, who received the highest honor for Romanian sportspeople, per ru.wiki, which satisfies WP:ANYBIO. It is also guaranteed that there is further offline coverage given that she was one of the greatest Romanian sportswomen and competed in the offline era. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per BeanieFan11. Ingratis (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly notable. WP:BEFORE was not done. Gheus (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep exceptional career and per Beaniefan11's argument. Canary757 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]