Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

25 April 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 24	April 26 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Conrad, Indiana

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

I'm about ready to pitch John Ade over the side as a source for places in this county, given the otherwise lack of evidence of this as a town; his claim that it was "laid out" is not realized in any structure or roads. In fact the best documentation of it is about the potential removal of the station there, all the way back around 1908. Otherwise it is only remembered in the name of the Conrad Savanna Nature Preserve which lies just to the east (the GNIS location having suffered label drift). There's no sign of a town in any topo or aerial, albeing that these don't go back too terribly far. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Documentum

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

The entire article is written like one big advertisement. Taking a look at it, it's very obvious to see that it is either written by AI, or it is solely written as a marketing tool. The main product of the article is also non-notable. st4rry :3 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aki Avni

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

Fails WP:ACTOR - non-notable actor - has only played small roles in a few films, best sources I could find was this TMDB, Amazon, IMDb, Apple TV, etc. GoldRomean (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Israel, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted‎. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Evidence

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

Empty disambiguation page. I am unclear on what happens to pages like this. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G14. As the creator, I'm happy to speedily delete and procedurally close this myself. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Róbert Ambrusics

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

Non-notable, I am unable to find any significant coverage and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Lucfev (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Lucfev (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktor Zalewski

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

Not notable nor does he have any notable success in the sport HeinzMaster (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. HeinzMaster (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of All Helps High School

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

Notable for one recent event, which already has an article. Can't find any previous coverage. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the stabbing. CoconutOctopus talk 16:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nantes school stabbing as creator - the article doesn't have as much potential as I hoped it could have, made it in a rush, not much encyclopedic value even as a stub. 7kk (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Condi movement

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

Im getting WP:NOPAGE, could be easily summarized at the article of the subject. Searches find no sustained coverage, with most sources cited either being unrelated to the event, very few actually cover the movement. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Dream

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

Unfortunately obscure tabletop rpg. The only "source" is a listing in the Quebec Business Registry which won't work properly for me. Aside from that, I can only find forum posts. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lists of Saudi Arabians

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

There is a category that fulfils the purpose of this article; an article seems unnecessary. TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which category? Oreocooke (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lists of Saudi Arabian people", presumably. Nub098765 (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Vlassopulos

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

Lack of notability; cites all fundamentally about Napster. I'd redirect there, but he does not seem to be mentioned in the article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Consulting South Africa

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP. Article appears to be a thinly-veiled puff piece. CoconutOctopus talk 14:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and South Africa. CoconutOctopus talk 14:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. I wouldn't say 'thinly veiled'. It is pure puffery.TheLongTone (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G11 candidate. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT and likely UPE based on the editing behavior. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experience Project

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

Defunct website that doesn't seem to have sufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability as noted in talk page. I do notice there are some now removed (negative) reviews on the website but these seem to be a very surface level and the coverage is rather short. Therefore I am nominating this for discussion. Imcdc Contact 06:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and California. Imcdc Contact 06:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast on Pluto (musical)

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

Has been tagged for notability for five years, and since then it doesn't seem like any progress has been made in the production. Maybe it warrants a paragraph at the novel article, but I can't see this as worthy of a standalone article. --wooden superman 14:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 14:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Orr

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

Disputed PROD, and that’s totally fine. But the de-PROD-der did so with summary that prompted me to do another cursory search, but still didn’t come up with anything tangible. My PROD statement Subject fails WP:NPOL and current sources do not help to qualify for WP:GNG still stands. I particularly went through the cited sources to find GNG-passable sources but yielded nothing. There are no sufficient independent sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject to establish the minimum GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Photography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of news coverage, and other evidence of relavance. Maybe a rewrite is in order but deletion doesnt seem needed Antiblastic (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Seems to be plenty of secondary source and independent media coverage to me. Article could use some work, but that is not grounds for deletion. RedBlueGreen93 23:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: City councillors are not notable by default per NPOL#1. Facebook post, Tweets and routine election news coverage is definitely not what is needed to meet NPOL#2 (which is basically GNG). Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Normally I'd vote delete for city councillors, especially newly-elected ones who haven't done much in office yet, but recent coverage of Sean Orr specifically has not been routine or minor. An elected official being at the municipal level is not a hard rule; if notability can be demonstrated by significant coverage, then the subject is notable (WP:GNG). Recent allegations of antisemitism and promotion of violence levied at Orr, and counter-allegations of libel and mischaracterisations, have earned Orr coverage at the national level beyond routine election and council coverage (e.g. CBC article on the accusations). Yue🌙 05:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yue Kindly present the sources you think makes this subject pass GNG. I didn’t see any, hence why I nominated. Social media links or PR pieces with insignificant coverages that are clearly dependent on the subject do not substantiate notability as long as GNG is concerned, so kindly provide your own sources that makes you think this, thank you. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC sources reads: In a Wednesday morning news conference, is not indepth and so, we can’t rely on it to establish notability. Even if we did, a source isn’t enough. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:30, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vancouver city councillors are notable political figures in BC. Other councillors have pages with similar sourcing and levels of detail. RedactedSagan (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The multiple calls for deletion from a single user Vanderwaalforces for an article under 1 month old without first contributing any clean up tags to the article fails to follow general protocol of steps C. according to WP:BEFORE. With Vanderwaalforces's issue with the notability of the person in this article, I question why a tag such as {{notability}} was not added to the article at the time of doubt, instead of the more aggressive, unnecessary deletion action. Particularly when there has been evidence leaning towards GNG, just poorly cited initially.

Sean Orr is notable as a Vancouver public figure due to his writing, activism and occupation as a politician. He has more significant news coverage citations than many similar level politicians with articles. His win in the latest by-election was notable as part of a historic by-election in Vancouver where voters waited up to 3 hours to cast their votes (and a majority of whom voted for Orr)^[1]. During his election campaign he has been endorsed by a number of well known politicians and public figures, such as Svend Robinson and Gabor Maté which in itself shows GNG.^[2] The lack of GNG-passable sources that were included when this article has been recently created does not indicate the lack of GNG sources of this person, it simply indicated the article was a stub in need of further work, added citations and additional edits. ColourfulCreative :DFTBA! (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greta points. Sean is clearly an important figure. DFTBA! RedactedSagan (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Holliday, Ian (5 April 2025). "'It's a voter deterrent': Vancouver byelection voters face long lineups to cast their ballots". CTVNews.
^ "Instagram". www.instagram.com.

Comment: As long as NPOL is concerned, this subject utterly fails criterion one. For criterion two, which is nothing far from WP:GNG, and as far as GNG is concerned in itself, below is an analysis of the sources currently cited in the article in which the keep !voters claim it enough to pass GNG. There are three parameters that must be met by a source before it can be considered to substantiate notability per GNG, all of the sources fail at least one or two of the parameters.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://scoutmagazine.ca/sean-orr-obscure-bands-played-my-friends-secret-loft-party/	By Sean Orr.			✘ No
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/vancouver-councillor-sean-orr-past-remarks	~ Clearly WP:ROTM.			✘ No
https://www.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/2-new-councillors-elected-in-chaotic-vancouver-byelection/				✘ No
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-election-analysis-orr-maloney-abc-sim-1.7503180				✘ No
https://www.vancitylookout.com/p/cope-council-candidate-sean-orr	Orr added he’d..., Orr said he’d..., Orr said he’s..., etc.	~		✘ No
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/events-and-entertainment/pretty-drifted-photos-by-sean-orr-1917634				✘ No
https://scoutmagazine.ca/contributor/seanorr/	Author page	per WP:IRS.		✘ No
https://thetyee.ca/Music/2006/01/27/MusicPix/	~			✘ No
https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/events-and-entertainment/9506-1917679	~		~	~ Partial
https://miss604.com/2007/10/vancouver-blogger-profile-sean-orr/	Clearly an interview.		~	✘ No
https://exclaim.ca/music/article/vancouver-just-elected-a-hardcore-punk-vocalist-to-city-council			Mostly WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/jewish-groups-condemn-statements-from-new-vancouver-councillor-sean-orr/ar-AA1CzoUA			Clearly WP:ROUTINE.	✘ No
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/woodsquat-retrospective-2022-1.6586412				✘ No
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-police-union-endorsement-1.6607093				✘ No
https://en.votemate.org/local2022/candidates/6690	Biography submitted by the candidate or their team.		~	✘ No
https://results.vancouver.ca/2022/results.html				✘ No
https://elections.bc.ca/docs/rpt/2005GEResults/SOV-GEcomplete.pdf				✘ No
https://www.democraticsocialistsyvr.ca/vancouver-by-election-2025?utm_source=www.vancitylookout.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cope-council-candidate-sean-orr-opens-up-about-advocacy-pragmatism-and-the-intimidation-of-city-hall		~		✘ No
https://thetyee.ca/News/2025/04/14/Sean-Orr-Fired-Up-Grill-Ken-Sim/	Interview piece.			✘ No
https://results.vancouver.ca/results.html				✘ No
https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/declaration-of-2025-official-by-election-results.pdf				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article does need some improvement, as it is a bit more reliant on primary sources than it should be — update: far less so now that I've poleaxed the unnecessary list of social media endorsements and added real media sourcing for his prior candidacies — but Vancouver is a global city whose city councillors do get a presumption of notability under WP:NPOL #2. I'm also almost certain that the nominator only looked for within-the-past-month political coverage, and failed to search for any art or music coverage from the 2010s. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Thank you for dropping this comment. I have some questions; NPOL does not cover municipal politicians or councillors whatsoever, was there a discussion somewhere that said councillors from "global cities" are presumptively notable under the same NPOL that doesn't give provisions for people of that status? I definitely cannot see how Orr passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:COMPOSER either, can you try to give direct address on these questions, please? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL #2 ("local political figures") absolutely covers municipal councillors: mayors and city councillors are literally who that criterion was written for. It's also a longstanding consensus, upheld by hundreds or even thousands of past AFD discussions on councillors in cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, Paris or Berlin, that city councillors in global cities are much more likely to cross the notability bar than city councillors in non-global cities — the article does still have to be more than just "So-and-so is a city councillor who exists, the end", but city councillors in global cities are very routinely kept so long as the article contains some useful and properly sourced context above and beyond "person who exists", as this one already does. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat Of course, but that is immediately followed by who have received significant press coverage. With a note saying ... A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. ... (I claim the emphasis). This is a parameter that must be met before a "local politician" can be considered presumptively notable per #2. Orr currently does not meet this parameter for NPOL #2 based on my analysis of the sources cited in the table above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per longstanding consensus, city councillors in global cities pass the test as long as they have enough coverage in reliable sources to enable us to write more than just "So-and-so is a city councillor who exists, the end". Orr has that. He also had coverage a decade ago as a musician and photographer and writer that you wouldn't find on Google, as Google very routinely fails to find decade-old coverage. There are a couple of sources here that could still stand to be replaced if possible (e.g. the one citation that's just his "staff" profile on a website that he wrote for), but there are already GNG-worthy media outlets being cited here, covering him in the context of more than just simple verification of his vote total on election night — and for a person who just took office within the past couple of weeks, there will clearly be more coverage in the future as well. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of GNG for this subject, I’m sorry. It is also clearly incorrect to me because not even a single source passes all three parameters required to meet GNG. With your assessment, this also means local politicians from my country are covered by NPOL#2. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources seem to indicate notability and passes WP:NPOL. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to note that no sources has been brought forth by the keep voters. And I disagree that a mayor of a “global city” should be judged in the same vein as a state politician. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion of the sourcing and in particular the source assessment table, which does not align with the volume of "keep" !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Said things people didn't like online [1], [2]. I don't see coverage about this person otherwise. Vancouver is a large Canadian city, so NPOL might apply, but only being written about for controversial statements doesn't pass notability standards here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Berjikly

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

The article lacks independent, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Also, today it was deleted by Explicit for SPA, fails WP BIO Najs Nam (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Najs Nam (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Delete: This Article does not have reliable citations, therefore it does not meets notability standards for Wikipedia mainspace article.Thanks KayVegas (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)~~strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that the article after PROD was shortly recreated by the original creator. That user seems to be an WP:SPA given how most edits were related Armen Berjikly and one of his companies, Kanjoya which has been deleted. Both pages had very promotional content. What a coincidence this user who had no activity since 2019 suddenly decided to be active 6 years later after one of the articles got deleted.- Imcdc Contact 07:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient in-depth sources about subject itself to establish notability. - Imcdc Contact 03:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhian Sugden

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find anything about this woman other than the expected nude pictures and tabloid "journalism" detailing incredibly minor events. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously changed to a redirect for the exact same reason, and nothing has changed since to make her more notable. Nomination for deletion since I simply do not think she's even notable enough for the redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Hard to find non-tabloid coverage, this [3] and this [4] helps. The multitude of Daily Mail or Sun coverage shows public knowledge of who she is. should at least be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this one as well [5] Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DIIOP

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Clenpr (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah drone smuggling investigation (2024–2025)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, lack of significant coverage for WP:GNG, does not seem to have enduring significance WP:EVENTCRIT – we don't have articles for every international policing operation and the "European network" is alleged and unnamed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lebanon. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hezbollah foreign relations (or another article). TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hezbollah military activities is the more appropriate merge target. Longhornsg (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foreign relations of Hezbollah#European Union. Came to the same conclusion as User:TurboSuperA+. Yes, it is mentioned elsewhere yet that structure may not be right and is better not expanded. The target should be expanded with this information. gidonb (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is to merge, but three different targets have been proposed. Any preference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan ul Arifeen Hazrat Syed Rakhyal Shah Sufi Al Qadri

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

I can find absolutely nothing about this individual on a WP:BEFORE search other than facebook posts and the like, and the article itself (along with being incredibly poorly written and overly long for no apparent reason) has absolutely zero sources. As such I don't believe this article meets WP:BIO. CoconutOctopus talk 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Pakistan. CoconutOctopus talk 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found from me either. Not sure this subject is verifiable Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Delta Air Lines destinations

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

A 2018 RFC found consensus that: "...Wikipedia should not have these lists, due to the excessive detail and maintenance required for keeping a local version up to date of data which is available directly from airline websites anyway. Basically, the arguments in Wikipedia is not a directory." This was later upheld in a 2024 AFD discussion specifically related to the list of United Airlines destinations. In light of that, I propose deleting this page. RickyCourtney (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:22, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 60#RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations found that these lists do not violate WP:NOT. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the cited RFC is overruled by latest consesus. Axisstroke (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Delta Air Lines#Destinations as an alternative to deletion per WP:GNG and WP:NLIST – I have been unable to find any reliable and independent secondary sources that provide significant coverage of a "list of Delta Air Lines destinations". Most of the sources in the article are just primary routine news coverage mostly reposting Delta Air Lines' announcements of new routes/routes being terminated. Searches performed did not yield any sources that would establish standalone notability per the aforementioned. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Aviationwikiflight. JFHJr (㊟) 01:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the face of it, it should be deleted/merged, per WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTADIRECTORY. However, there is also WP:LISTPURP-NAV, which may apply here. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 09:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this list serves any navigational purpose. If a reader is looking for an airport and don't know what it's called, they'll look up the city or go to List of airports in the United States. Toadspike [Talk] 09:51, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the intro should mention why this AFD supersedes the previous discussions that resulted in 3x Keep and once in no consensus. Axisstroke (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Airline destination lists are notable under WP:AVIATION guidelines Dazzling4 (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject guidelines do not trump official policies and guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address notability per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Down Rodeo

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

Article about a song, not properly referenced as passing WP:NSONG. As always, songs are not automatically entitled to have their own standalone articles just because they exist, and have to demonstrate a notability claim supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing -- but this just claims that the song exists without documenting anything (chart success, awards, etc.) that would constitute a notability claim at all, and cites absolutely no referencing whatsoever.
A redirect to the album it came from would obviously also be perfectly appropriate, but since that's the kind of thing that tends to trigger revert wars I'm not prepared or willing to unilaterally impose that without consensus.
But this needs a more meaningful notability claim than just existing, and GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about the song itself to support it, before it qualifies for its own standalone article as a separate topic from the album. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scuderia Famà

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

Topic fails WP:GNG; best sources I could find were this [6] which is just statistics and a brief mention here [7]. Non-notable. GoldRomean (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7 (club, society, or group) - No claim to notability or no indication of importances, with no sources referenced. Subject does not appear to be notable, either, with the current sources presented by @GoldRomean.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haris Zahirovic

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

This men's footballer has not played at professional level so far. Other than the database sources, I can't find anything about him at all to meet WP:SIRS. Since his place of birth is unclear, I checked the German Wikipedia as he mostly played in Austria, which is an unsourced dumping ground. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Austria, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Costa

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

WP:LUGSTUB that has been returned to mainspace without any additional sourcing of the kind that would satisfy WP:NSPORT. The only assertion of notability is a team medal at the 1911 Turin Artistic Gymnastics World Championships, and a silver for rings and a bronze for parallel bars at the same event.

The team medal cannot be an indicator of individual notability, since notability is not inherited from the team. For these individual medals, only four people appear to have competed at the rings, three of whom received silver, and as such this silver cannot be an indicator of notability since everyone received silver or better. Similarly, for the parallel bars, it appears that everyone who competed received a medal, so again this bronze shared with six other people cannot indicate notability.

Moreover the circumstances of the 1911 Turin gymnastics championships mean they can hardly be considered the equivalent of modern games: the competition took place in the dark with the competitors being allowed to use their own equipment. Competitors were allowed to "cheat" on the parallel bars. Officially speaking this was only a team event, with no individual awards - the "gold", "silver" , "bronze" designations were given post-facto.

Searching further I see that Costa (or at least someone with the same name) took part in the 1919 Inter-Allied Games, but again his performance in the horse riding and jumping does not appear to have attracted significant coverage. I don't see anything in the corresponding French Wiki article that would fix this. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a huge pain to search for sources, but I think its likely that he's notable. He could have been known by several names, e.g. "Costa Antoine", "Antoine Costa", "Antoine Seville", and French newspaper archives Gallica has many matches that are of him, but its very time consuming to search through them all and get them translated (a few coverage examples: [8] [9]). There's a brief piece on him here; apparently he and Louis Ségura were the sole Olympians of Spanish nationality in 1908. His accomplishments and the confirmed coverage make me feel like his notability is likely. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you search for names other than the name of this article, you find information about people with other names. Yes also, it is difficult to find sources for this article which is why it better to find the sources before the article is created. Giving time for these sources to be found was the reason why this article was draftified.
It is also time-absorbing to go through results that clearly aren't relevant to the topic under discussion and/or don't provide signficant coverage of him, but here we are, so:
I do not see what hits from the Gallica search are relevant here. The first hit is La Dépêche algérienne which does not mention any gymnast by the name of Antoine Costa: it gives three excepts, the first is about a shoemaker called Antoine Claver, the second is a death notice posted by Mr and Mrs Antoine Costa and their children, the third is a notice about the arrest of a man by the name of Rico Boras Antoine. The second hit is much the same except Mr and Mrs Antoine Costa are posting a marriage notice this time. What is it we're supposed to be looking at here?

The L'Écho sportif de l'Oranie article is not WP:SIGCOV of Costa. It simply makes a couple of bare mentions of Costa ("...Antoine Costa et Bensadoum sont egalement a admirer ... Costa Antoine 2e du championnat artistique ...", or in machine translation " ... Antoine Costa and Bensadoum are also to be admired ... Costa Antoine 2nd in the artistic championship ... "). This is not SIGCOV.

The Le Libéral article similarly contains no significant coverage of Costa. It simply mentions him as one of the six member of the French team, and then says "Nos felicitations aux champions d'Algeries et au professeur costa de notre excellente societe de gymnastique l'Oranais", or in machine translation "Our congratulations to the Algerian champions and to Professor Costa of our excellent Oranian gymnastics society". This is not SIGCOV - it is not even clear that "Professor Costa" is the same as Antoine Costa.

The Meyba article similar just says "Antoine Costa nació en Orán el 23 de octubre de 1884, también compitió en 1912. En su partida de nacimiento también figura la anotación espagnol" or in machine translation "Antoine Costa was born in Oran on October 23, 1884, and also competed in 1912. His birth certificate also includes the notation "espagnol". Again, this is not SIGCOV.
If you want more time to find sources for this, then simply reverting the mainspacing and re-instating the five-year count-down agreed in WP:LUGSTUBS is an option. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cook (soccer)

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

Very little information about Cook, but that may be in part due to his name and there is information about him that I was unable to find to confirm his notability. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Raskuly (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Raskuly (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state), North Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Kingdoms

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with insufficient reviews of any one game in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Twist

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks reviews in reliable sources besides Android Magazine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Relic (video game)

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

Appears to only have gotten reliably sourced reviews from AppSpy and Pocket Gamer, falling short of the typical WP:GNG threshold of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some coverage but nothing sustained Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable source coverage to sustain a coherent article (as evidenced by the fact that virtually nothing of substance is said in the article.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PULSAR: Lost Colony

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

Game appears to fail WP:GNG, with the only two publications that are reliable and covered it being Rock Paper Shotgun and The Games Machine, therefore causing it to fall just short of the typical threshold. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver City, Indiana

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

I have to wonder how a "city" founded in 1893 got its post office in 1866, but in any case this place has no trace outside Baker tat I can find, and as best I can tell it was an over-optimistically-named rail stop on a line that disappeared possibly in the 1950s, certainly by the early 1960s. There are a few houses in the area still but hardly a town. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 April 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harbinger Resistance

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

Fictional organization from a comic that fails WP:GNG. I searched online and was unable to find anything. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Organizations. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3ZE

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

Radio station that fails WP:GNG. I was only able to find one word mentions of it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 India–Pakistan diplomatic crisis

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

This article is an undiscussed fork of an already existing 2025 Pahalgam attack#Response. There have been diplomatic crises between India and Pakistan since the first Kashmir war, however, this is the first time this article is being created. Koshuri ^(グ) 12:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, Pakistan, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Koshuri ^(グ) 12:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event. Pahelgam attack was it's background. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge back This does not appear to be a separate thing from a response to the attack and is hardly so large that it needs to be taken out of that contest. Mangoe (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, this crisis is especially noteworthy in that the Indus water treaty which remained valid despite the 1971 and 1999 wars has been suspended, both nations have expelled attachees and diplomats and civilians have been ordered to leave, moreover the Shimla agreement which solidified LOC as the de facto border too has been suspended, moreover skirmishes have been taking place along the LOC and indian aircraft carrier has been deployed in the Arabian sea. This crisis has been the largest and most notable since the 2019 one. Hence it wouldn't fall under WP: REDUNDANTFORK provided significant coverage in WP:RS which also solidifies it's notability. 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 12:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose , the claim made was misleading as it would be totally wrong to state the diplomatic crisis as a mere aftermath of the attack whereas the crisis made itself notable by some important factors such as the temporary invalidation of the Indus Treaty as well as the withdrawal of the recognition of LOC as the de facto border accompanying with firings at the border areas , all that makes it a notable event , also the Pahalgam attack article fails to cover the full details , hence all that proves it to be a notable event. Ameer ul - Momeenen (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – To give a similar case: Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and July Crisis are seperate articles as one was the inciting event for the other. The 2025 Pahalgam attack is the inciting event for the 2025 India–Pakistan diplomatic crisis and I believe the sources show the diplomatic crisis is major enough to warrant its own article DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a very serious global incident as India has pulled back the Indus treaty and Pakistan has pulled back the Shimla Agreement. This could very well lead to full blown war. Helper who is a human (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rumours of border skirmishes may be within this article and do not belong in the 2025 Pahalgam attack wiki. PLMandarynka (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep , Its an ongoing thing why you seething and want to remove it ? Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The response to the Pahalgam Attack was made by the Indian government, resulting in the Diplomatic Crisis between India and Pakistan. Hence, these are sequential but different topics, and any further events or escalations in tensions between the countries shall be put in detail in this article rather than mentioning the full details on the Pahalgam Attack article. So, this article should not be pushed for deletion, atleast till the tensions between India and Pakistan de-escalate. Idiot1729 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event not entirely covered by the response section of 2025 Pahalgam attack.

Ecrusized (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The diplomatc measures have long term impact. They are not just part of the Pahalgam attack. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is currently gained this time 3500 views. Also this is notable and providing the better coverage and this article will introduce theb upcoming development between India and Pakistan. Also this is diplomatic and not only the part of the attack. It's overly different from the attack. Misopatam (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Operation Parakram is a separate page from the 2001 Parliament attacks even though the 2001-2002 crisis was a direct result and response to the attack. The geopolitical consequences are different from the event itself. >>> Extorc.talk 14:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event not entirely covered by the response section of 2025 Pahalgam attack, totally agree. The crisis is developing right now!Wi1-ch (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Different set of events warrants a distinct article. The topic is notable and gains attraction from interested readers. No need to merge with 2025 Pahalgam attack, it completely serves a unique purpose. Shakakarta (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not covered in other page and notable as a standalone page, likely gets more attention as a standalone page as well. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikosmos

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

All refs fail WP:SIRS. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and South Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's by a notable composer; it has been reviewed in notable sources (Fanfare, American Record Guide) and by notable scholars (Stephanus Muller). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Part of the WikiProject Southern African Music & Sound aimed at extending coverage of SA music on wikipedia. Blake is a composer of international acclaim and the work has been reviewed in reputable outlets.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Viljowf (talk • contribs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion needed in order to decide if the work itself is notable. Keep arguments so far only say the composer and reviewers are notable, and that isn't enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the relisting comment Keep arguments so far only say the composer and reviewers are notable, and that isn't enough. I think I mentioned before somewhere that the silence at WP:NMUSIC about compositions is bizarre. Anyway, the general principle for WP:N is … received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That's satisfied by the reviews mentioned above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Ackerman

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

This article doesn't have any secondary sources, and doing WP:BEFORE, it doesn't look like any exist. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Magic. Yeshivish613 (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. Couldn't find any sourcing either. Longhornsg (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find coverage for a television person [10], nothing about this magician. Sourcing in the article is strictly primary. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 1998 Commonwealth Games – Men's javelin throw

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

Non-notable javelin throw event, i was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We generally consider these event articles as valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long). If deleted this would be, I think, the only event in the history of the Commonwealth Games to not have an article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, keep per WP:NOLYMPIC "*Significant coverage is likely to exist for events at individual Summer or Winter Olympic or Paralympic Games, e.g., Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's", and this extends to most international Games and Championships as well. There is also SIGCOV in this specific instance to prove the point, e.g. "Silver lining as England team mount final push" or "Backley spurred on by upset". Lastly I'll just say that because this is a list article, per WP:NLIST sometimes lists can be kept because they're useful navigational aids without demonstrating notability. --Habst (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Lists that are unsourced, single-sourced, or single primary sourced, existing as an exception to WP:NLIST which states, Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists.. This sort of mirrors Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists.

Review: Any exception[s], if actually allowed by consensus (depending on the list), need to be one of three, for Information, navigation, or Development. I am not sure an unsourced or poorly sourced break-away list containing the names of living people qualifies. Consideration, of course, has to be the membership criteria.

While attempting to validate a list, policies and guidelines should probably at least be considered. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists includes, "Citing sources": Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources.

Some editors may attempt to down-play the Notability guideline. The opening sentence states, "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." The actual opening paragraph states, Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".

Wikipedia gauges notability and being "worthy of notice" by verifiability: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Please note #2 and #3:

direct quotations,
material whose verifiability has been challenged,
material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

The note on numbers 2 and 3 is because any assumption of inherited or inherent notability is a fallacy. Alright, that's not the note, but true. Anyway, an article, or list, that remains published, either by silence on the subject, or even IAR, is subject to consensus and the fact that consensus can change.

The mention that other stuff exists is usually not a good thing to bring up at AFD. A good discussion for an exemption would be "valid splits from the main page (which would otherwise become way too long)." If a supposed parent article is not sourced or barely sourced, I am not open to considering a "valid split". I have ran across several of these. Articles like List of European Athletics Championships records has sources and also have many "splits" listed as details, which might be a consideration. There should be a link to the "main" article. Articles like European Running Championships with two sources counted as one and likely not advancing notability would not be a good candidate for consideration..

Summation: To claim exemption from notability or verifiability requires silence from other editors, IAR, that is dependent on consensus, and must consider the fact that consensus can change. Any silence ends when there is a challenge, so "likely to exist" becomes moot, and is satisfied by proof in the form of references, specifically inline citations. It would be better to supply a reference and the link to the main article to keep some editor from going on a crusade. It would be sad if the "history of the Commonwealth Games" were upset. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this AI? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend the addition of at least one reliable source to the article per WP:V. The present one is insecure.

Otr500, you need to abide by due process at AfD by providing a concise rationale that may include links to guidelines. I doubt if anyone will make time to read your input here, and the reaction by BeanieFan11 is understandable. Spartathenian (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added the above sources to the article, thanks. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Habst. Spartathenian (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Recommend immediate closure as the "keep" arguments and actions are policy-compliant, and the nomination reveals a lack of experience in subjects of this type. I would close it myself but for earlier involvement. Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Firstly, I do not understand the argument that this is a list article. It is an article about a single event in the athletics section of a single competition in a single year. I suppose it "lists" the distances thrown by competitors but that is not really a list so much as a demonstration that this subject only has database listing evidence. No, the piece about Backley's throw does not show that the event is independently notable. The games are notable, but the single event is a spin-off of the games article. There is no clear reason why that is necessary. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but it is not a results database, and that is all this page is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Years ago, it was decided to spin-off the results as otherwise the main page would get way too long. If deleted, this would be, out of the thousands of events in its history, the sole Commonwealth Games event missing an article. That would be nonsensical. If we're saying that its not encyclopedic they need to be discussed as a group, not just one, as that would leave a very awkward gap. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion to establish if this should be treated separately from other Games articles
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:NOLYMPIC position quoted above extends to other top-level championships including the Commonwealth Games. It is true that the Games as a whole have an over-arching level of notability as they are a major sporting event, but each individual competition within the Games is also notable in its own right. In practice, as BeanieFan11 rightly pointed out earlier, individual event articles are maintained as valid forks from the Games article for reasons that must include pagelength and readership convenience. Spartathenian (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOLYMPIC suitably makes the case that the Commonwealth Games would be notable, but there are 45 disciplines at the Commonwealth games, of which 26 are core disciplines. The relevant discipline for Men's Javelin is, in fact, Athletics (a core discipline). The Athletics discipline consists of nearly 70 events, of which the Men's javelin throw is just one. A page on the Commonwealth Games in any year it is held is certainly notable. That does not mean that for every Commonwealth Games we should also presume there are many hundreds of pages of notable events for every one of the 45 disciplines. There is clearly no such presumption intended nor implied. The only thing that matters would be secondary sources telling us about the 1998 men's javelin throw, discussing the event, and explaining why the event is enduringly notable. Such coverage would need to be WP:SUSTAINED, and not just primary reports of the results of the competition itself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Song

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are promo, primary. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:RPRGM (itself an essay and not a formal SNG) has not mentioned TV programmes since 2021, but if I understand correctly, it used to say that programmes broadcast on national networks are likely to be notable. This one has been nationally broadcast for five years, so not sure how the nom's "fails WP:RPRGM" statement should be interpreted. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an inherent difficulty in evaluating coverage of popular media in Thai entertainment reporting in terms of independence, as such coverage has traditionally made little distinction between original reporting and supplied material. Thairath, for example, has lots of episode recaps in its website tag for the programme[11], and though most of them read promotionally, there's also a critical news item[12] and even some discussion by the print edition's political columnist[13]. There was a flurry of news coverage when the programme's host was implicated in The iCon Group case leading to his termination[14][15][16], but even some of these appeared to be PR-based[17][18][19][20]. The most in-depth piece of coverage is this piece by web magazine The Cloud[21]. It's interview-based, but includes an introductory section of twelve sentence-length paragraphs in the writer's own voice that indicate source independence. Maybe consider rescoping to cover the franchise instead, since there's more English-language coverage about it[22][23], but then again most of it is from trade publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Serbia Flight 324

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Serbia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete or possibly there is some list of accidents to which this could be redirected, but a runway overrun in which nobody was even injured is of fleeting newsworthiness. Mangoe (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember this being a big deal - it was in the news cycle for over a week and made front page headlines, and Serbian sources were running top stories on it days after the accident, which is confirmed through my BEFORE search in local sources. It easily passes GNG and clearly had continued coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport#Accidents and incidents. I don't think the coverage here is persistent enough to meet the EVENTCRIT mark, especially considering that there wasn't a crash and there were no injuries. nf utvol (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L Franchise (film series)

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

No significant coverage on sources as a film series; nor for a third film, which seems to be WP:CRYSTAL speculation at this point. Vestrian24Bio 10:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Vestrian24Bio 10:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and WP:NFF. — Benison (Beni · talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FedEx Express Flight 87

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as recreation of deleted material; in any case this is a relatively minor accident of no interest outside of standard accident investigation, except of course for those whose shipments were damaged or lost. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marske United F.C. seasons

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

This is similar to the currently open AfD for List of Cirencester Town F.C. seasons except that this club has not even played at a level as high as that club has. To date the highest level at which this club has played is the 8th tier of English football, and I feel that on that basis a separate article on the club's seasons is not merited -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.I understand the arguments around notability for such statistics. I would like to offer up for consideration that, even though they haven't risen very high in the league pyramid, they have in recent seasons reached the semi-finals of the FA Vase and the first round proper of the FA Cup. The other team mentioned have had league success getting as high as Level of nonleague tiers (Level 7 overall), but have not had the same cup success. Difficult decision i admit. Goes to the other debates i have seen about other non league teams having individual entries. Perhanps a merge with the main article about the club may be appropriate?Rimmer1993 (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable events. Giant Snowman 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the club article isn't long enough for a split, though there may need to be some culling of information. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Northern Iraq (2023)

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

Reason Kajmer05 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC) The article does not mention a PKK victory, and the sources given for casualties exaggerate Turkish casualties (It is stated that 152 Turkish soldiers have been killed since 2015, not in 2023), meaning the sources do not match the article.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Iraq, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Which source Are you Talking about exactly?

The sources are Claims by the conflict parties them selfs which cant be „faked“. And I checked, i dont see 2015 ever beeing meantioned, could you please tell me in which source you saw that?

and yes it doesnt speak about victory, but turkey Left the Qandil Mountains After These Action which is a victory for PKK. But i think we could Talk about an inconclusive in that case. 2A02:8071:6142:A6A0:C4BE:994F:4F9D:A736 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

The first source used is by a pro-PKK news agency, Firat News Agency, making it unreliable. Yes, it does state it as a PKK claim, although I'm not sure whether this is fair to include. The second source doesn't seem to be a Turkish claim, as it is literally the US database citing the International Crisis Group. It also fails failed verification, making up a number of injured. The third source is the same as the first, for some reason duplicated. The fourth source does state what is mentioned in the article, however the source quite frankly states "Since 2015", meaning it should not be used here. The fifth source is the same as the second, the sixth source is the same as the fourth, the seventh source is the same as the first and third, and the eighth source is the same as the second and fifth.

Overall, the entire page seems to just be made up on lies and misinterpretation. It does not deserve to be on Wikipedia, as I'd argue that having to rewrite the entire page and change quite literally everything is not something that correlates with fixing. Furthermore, the user is well, now blocked, and has tons of their articles moved to draftspace or deleted. Not a good editor in the slightest. Setergh (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Grant

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

Subject's importance is solely in relation to Fistula Foundation. Subject does not meet notability in WP:BIO. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 09:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, United States of America, and California. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 09:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Pacák

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

LUGSTUB de-prodded by Habst. The issue here is every single source is a bare database listing (all of which are ultimately the same source referencing the same data) or the Czech Athletics association - no independent, reliable source providing significant biographical coverage of the subject of the article has been provided of the kind needed for an WP:NSPORTS pass.

Searching online I see many references to the prominent Czech doctor after whom Pacak–Zhuang syndrome is named, but nothing about this runner beyond the usual mirrors and databases. We cannot simply assume that coverage exists based on them having been an Olympian - that was a position completely deprecated by WP:NSPORTS2022.

I mean come on guys, even the death-date for this guy is unknown. It's assumed that he died in Germany but even this actually isn't known because his death-date isn't known (and so it shouldn't say this). Considering the history of the period, stating that this man "later moved to Germany" could be extremely inaccurate, but is a symptom of the degree to which the sources have been over-interpreted to produce this article. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. FOARP (talk) 09:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the bit that said he later "moved to Germany", which appears to be conjecture. Olympedia states with no certainty that he may have "Died in ? (GER)"; it says nothing about his having "moved" there. If in fact he died there, he may just as likely have been there temporarily, e.g., as a forced laborer under the Nazi regime or as a soldier during WWII. There is simply no source saying he later "moved to Germany". Cbl62 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With Czechoslovakia dissolving into multiple countries plus him being born in a nation that also dissolved, I think a proper search on this guy is going to be require looking in a lot of different languages. I think any kind of deletion of this article should require a little extra care since there's so many problems that one could run into. I don't think not knowing more details about his death disgraces the article. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serviços Executivos Aéreos de Angola

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources passed WP:SIRS since none of them were secondary and did not contain any significant independent coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Examples: [24] [25] [26] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Angola. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Masson (boxer)

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

Mass-created LUGSTUB de-prodded by BeannieFan with a vague wave in the direction of a newspaper archive that is not accessible.

There is no credible reason to believe sources exist that would give detail biographical coverage of Antoine Masson. Simply pointing at hits in an archive is not sufficient when we have no idea of their content - "Antoine Masson" is a common name (examples of people with the same name include a prominent 19th century French physicist and a 17th century painter), and even sources that covered the relevant Olympic event would in all likelihood only have covered Masson in passing.

Additionally, this article is a potential WP:V failure: the Olympedia link in the article is for Louis Masson, not Antoine. So what was their name? Was it Antoine or Louis? Or both? Or neither? This appears to be yet another example of Olympedia actually not being a very reliable source. Regardless searches for "Louis Masson" throw up plenty of people who have the same name (e.g., a French politician) but nothing that provides significant coverage of a Belgian boxer. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Belgium. FOARP (talk) 08:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His name is "Louis"; per Olympedia Name previously listed as Antoine Masson, but newspaper reports do not support this. That right there indicates that he was covered in newspapers, and I presented a Belgian newspaper archive with a large number of matches for his name, but oh, apparently we shouldn't check there... BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Jassar

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

The article is excessively based primary sources and original research and is possibly a nationalist pov pushing. Most of these sources seem to be written by Pakistani authors who are known for their Nationalist agenda. Therefore it fail WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:V Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 07:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 07:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was a minor skirmish which doesn't warrant a separate page. It is part of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreeing with above its a minor battle WP:notability with citations being non neutral —- Jabba550
Draftify. Draftify it, Ill work on it later and submit via AfC. 𝗭𝗲𝗽𝗵𝘆𝗿 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus A. Banks-Bey

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

Does not pass WP:NCRIMINAL. These are relatively minor crimes, sourcing is hyperlocal and over a very short time two years ago. Crime spree does not pass WP:NEVENT. Also BLPCRIME issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. A combination of CSD G6, as the page was created in error, CSD G7, as Helpful Raccoon, who created the page, has requested deletion below, and WP:SNOW, because it's obvious that this discussion will end with deletion. JBW (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of B2B marketplaces

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

Random list of webpage links that was contested as a spam article. NYC Guru (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is just a page of links so probably doesn’t fit Notability- Jabba550
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep, nothing more than a link-fest. Yelps (talk) 05:42, 42 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page only exists because of an edit conflict when User:DoubleGrazing moved it to draft and I tried to add a speedy delete reason at the same time. An unfortunate waste of time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realise that's what happened. Yes, I did move (a copy of) this to drafts, it's at Draft:List of B2B marketplaces. The whole thing was created by a SPA promo-only account, whom I've since blocked, for the sole purpose of having their own business included on the list.

I'm quite happy to speedy this, if that is preferred, in which case someone tag it please. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simon Critchley

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

Low quality billboard advert for a not important philosopher. jrabbit05 (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Critchley is clearly notable. The quality of the article content is not something to bring to this forum. "No accurate deletion rationale has been provided" (WP:SK). Charles Matthews (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Incredibly easy WP:NAUTHOR pass. Working backwards from his most recent books, there are reviews for Bald: 35 Philosophical Short Cuts in the Times Literary Supplement and Kirkus Reviews; reviews for Tragedy, the Greeks, and Us in Common Knowledge, Contemporary Theatre Review, Theatre Journal, Philosophy Today, NPR, the NY Journal of Books and the New Yorker; reviews for What We Think When We Think About Football in Kirkus, Harpers Magazine, Rolling Stone and the WSJ; reviews for Notes on Suicide in The Irish Times, the Independent, the Times Literary Supplement and the LA Review of Books; and reviews for Bowie in Australian Book Review, Philosophy Now, the Irish Times and the Independent. At this point I gave up searching, but according to the article he has another 16 books so I expect there are plenty more reviews for those as well. His citation count looks at a glance like a very strong case for WP:NPROF#C1 and his named professorship is potentially a pass of WP:NPROF#C5. Clearly meets both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. MCE89 (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Critchley is a leading living philosopher, and easily passes WP:NAUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cytherean

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

Per WP:NOTDICT, likely fails WP:GNG as well. A significant portion of the article's content is unsourced and likely WP:OR and is of minimal encyclopedic value; the remaining content could easily be merged into the primary Venus article as a brief section about nomenclature. Ark Hyena (they/any) 06:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, it's quite a pretty article, but ArkHyena is right; all but one of the sources is a dictionary (not a great sign). The bits that are less dictionary-like are, unfortunately, written in the tone of a lecturer giving a light afternoon public talk, and unsourced (e.g. "...was felt to be unfortunately similar to "aphrodisiac", again evoking sex rather than astronomy"... was felt by whom? where did this come from?). Elemimele (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JuiceCaster

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

Defunct website that doesn't seem to have sufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Was previously deleted as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21 Ventures. Imcdc Contact 05:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, and Websites. Imcdc Contact 05:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G11 candidate, but if you do a lot of digging, you can find some in-depth coverage. However, since it is defunct and cannot see it ever being more than a stub, would recommend a redirect to List of defunct social networking services (note this is for companies with Wikipedia pages but there are companies listed there without). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Liversidge

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

No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. The TV show he was on, Round the Twist is notable, but his role in it for two seasons is not. Checked Google and ProQuest which yielded 4 hits (cast lists and passing mentions, plus "contributes a wicket March Hare and terrific Humpty Dumpty" in a 2009 review in The Age). Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Australia. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considered redirecting to Round the Twist but that article does not mention the actor or his role. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cirencester Town F.C. seasons

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

This is an article that is a list of seasons for an amateur team bouncing between the seventh and eighth levels of English football. No sources, tagged since 2015. Does not pass notability guidelines for sports as we don't make wikipedia pages for the season records of amateur teams.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and England. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's such a small club, delete per WP:LISTN. Govvy (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable list of non-notable events. Giant Snowman 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but note - I do think this is a potentially valid article, it's just both completely unsourced and incomplete. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Chauvin

AfDs for this article:

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

I expect this will be controversial, but I do think my argument is valid. This article was AfDed twice before, shortly after it happened, the first of which was delete and the second of which was keep. Nearly five years later, I believe we can address the article on its merits, and whether it results in keep or delete this will hopefully have led to some improvement in the state of things, whether through deletion or improving it to where it clearly has a scope outside of other articles.

Chauvin fails WP:CRIMINAL and WP:NOPAGE. The crime is notable, but as a person he is not, and even if he is notable this article contains virtually no biographical information besides legal cases and all encyclopedic information is already covered on other articles.

Firstly: he fails WP:CRIMINAL, which specifies a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Of course, there are outlined exceptions, and of the guideline's two perpetrator criteria, he fails the first (the victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, e.g. politicians or celebrities (whether Floyd himself is notable is a different question that I will not weigh in on, but he was surely not notable prior to the crime happening so this does not apply) and also fails the second. The second prong is thus:

The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

The problematic part for Chauvin's case is while the murder is clearly notable, his role as a person is not significantly discussed in sources that are not extremely close to the event. Almost all are WP:ROUTINE legal notice and they do not persist[...] beyond contemporaneous news coverage, they are right after the event happened. They are all on the wider societal effects - but not Chauvin or how his life relates to the event. Unlike other killers who may warrant an article, where there was wide discussion about motive and the personal background of the killer, and how it relates to the event, there is none of that here. There is basically no discussion of Chauvin as a person at all outside of breaking news sources and legal notice which do not help for WP:CRIMINAL

Secondly, WP:NOPAGE: even when someone technically fulfills one of our notability guidelines, it is worth considering whether we are best serving the information to the reader this way. Killers who are much more notable, and who clearly pass WP:CRIMINAL, have had their articles deleted because it was better covered or had too much overlap with the main event article, even when it clearly harmed the main event article, or when the main article was extremely lengthy. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it gives us precedent to ask the question, would be beneficial to the reader if this information is presented another way? Yes, it would, for this case.

Almost all information in this article is basic legal proceedings, which overlap entirely with the Murder of George Floyd or the Trial of Derek Chauvin article. There are numerous citations to legal documents (which we are not supposed to use on a BLP ever), there is virtually no necessary information in this article that is not repeated in other articles, except that he was attacked in prison (not relevant to notability), and an enumerated and improperly formatted list of conduct complaints (sourced to breaking news).

What does the reader get from having this article, which is not a biography but a list of legal cases, which are already covered on other articles and covered better! If it is possible to write an article on Chauvin that does not duplicate other articles and clearly has a reason to exist besides it being for the sake of it, this is not it, and this article shows no evidence that it is capable of becoming that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Police. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chauvin has been reported on for a number of different crimes, with sources also devoting significant space to his earlier life and career. While Chauvin murdering Floyd no doubt initiated all of this, sourcing is, at this point, sufficient for a standalone article. Cortador (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not per WP:CRIMINAL, the relevant notability guideline. The content that isn't in other articles is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to any notability, and if kept shouldn't even be included in the article (with the exception of his early life, but that is sourced entirely to sparse mentions in articles from the month after the crime). The claim to notability is entirely based on the Floyd killing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He clearly meets the second prong you discussed for the significance of coverage around his role to this day and in a global context. It isn’t “just contemporaneous.” The reporting on Chauvin has investigated the whole context of his life and career and his role continues to be pivotal to this historic event and the discussions still occurring. This feels like saying Lee Harvey Oswald shouldn’t have an article as his notability is exclusively due to one very historic crime-the crime is of such significance that reliable sources have since investigated and discussed him and his past actions.~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 15:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIMINAL: "2. [The crime] has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." We've certainly met that threshold. The trial of Derek Chauvin does not go into the same detail that this article does, in part because not all biographical elements of his life are admissible as evidence at trial. There are details about Chauvin that will never fit cleanly into other articles. Details that readers clearly seek, given page views of this article versus related ones The Savage Norwegian 16:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." The sourcing does not discuss Chauvin as a person extensively. He was there, he did it, that is all they really say. He is the perpetrator but the sourcing does not focus on him outside of legal notice. Someone like Lee Harvey Oswald has extensive coverage about their life outside of the legal case - Chauvin has almost none. This article is sourced almost exclusively to routine legal proceedings.
Page views are not notability. Whatever details this article has (he went to a certain school, tax fraud case) that the others don't are superfluous and aren't needed to understand the Floyd killing. We have WP:BLP1E for a reason. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The sourcing does not discuss Chauvin as a person extensively." Yes it does: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. Levivich (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
5 of those are from right after the murder happened or trial coverage, so they do not "persist beyond contemporaneous news coverage". The first one has him in the title but I checked it and it recaps the murder and analyzes the murder. It gives no information on him as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "right after the murder" is not what I would call "right after the murder":
May 25, 2020: the murder happened

A few days later, May 29, 2020, WaPo's profile of Chauvin [33]. That is contemporaneous news coverage, right after the murder.

Seven months after the murder, Dec. 23, 2020: "Derek Chauvin: Racist Cop or Product of a Racist Police Academy?" published in the Journal of Black Studies. That is neither contemporaneous, nor news coverage. [34]

Nine months after the murder, Feb. 6, 2021, PBS's profile of Chauvin [35]

Ten months after the murder, Mar. 10, 2021, BBC's profile of Chauvin [36]

Eleven months after the murder, Apr. 20, 2021, CNN's profile of Chauvin [37]

A year and two months after the murder, Jun 25, 2021, NYT's profile of Chauvin [38].

It is not true that the first source--the Journal of Black Studies article--"gives no information on him as a person", e.g.: Chauvin was the product of a highly militarized police academy that molds recruits into human robots programmed to enforce laws that target predominantly African-Americans ... Chauvin’s record with the Minneapolis Police Department included 'at least 17 complaints' ... Though Officer Chauvin had several complaints filed against him, he 'received only two letters of reprimand' ... it is, perhaps, not too great a leap to attribute Chauvin’s homicidal act to being “educated away from . . . [Black] culture” (Asante, 1993, p. 170) as well as living away from it ... Had Chauvin had the benefit of an Afrocentric education and training or even greater exposure to the Black life and culture of the inner city, he may have been able to resist perceiving Floyd as a violent criminal and view with greater empathy a man begging for his life. It's perhaps more psychoanalysis than biography, it's not the most detailed RS about Chauvin, but it certainly gives information about Chauvin.

Take away the WaPo and the Journal of Black Studies articles, and you still have PBS, BBC, CNN, and NYT writing profiles of him months or over a year after the event. And that's just what I found in five minutes of googling his name. Levivich (talk) 18:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are during the trial, which contemporaneous to that event, they are recapping to remind the audience paying attention to the trial. Look at the headings - "What charges does Chauvin face?" "What has happened since Chauvin's arrest?" etc, yes that's WP:ROUTINE legal developments which will happen with the perpetrator of any murder case. The PBS is not, but is a personal interview with people who knew him which is WP:PRIMARY.

The journal source is, as evidenced by the text you excerpt, useless for developing a BLP, and it does not give information on him that would help developing an article. It's all hypotheticals or abstract he may have been, had Chauvin had the benefit. And two sentences about his police record. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CRIMINAL because the murder of George Floyd is a well-documented historic event, and because sustained coverage of the event in RS persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to Chauvin. WP:NOPAGE arguments don't convince me: the content about Chauvin that is not about his murder of Floyd, e.g. his history of excessive force, his experience in prison, etc., would be WP:UNDUE in articles about the murder of Floyd. Chauvin is a notable criminal. Having an article about Floyd, an article about Chauvin, and an article about Chauvin's murder of Floyd, is the best way to split up coverage of that topic. If we were to combine it, we'd have undue problems, and page size problems, given the vast amount of RS coverage of Floyd, Chauvin, and the murder. Levivich (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The prison content is not even due weight here. It is completely unrelated to his notability. The main article can easily address that he had several improper use of force complaints in a paragraph or so. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being stabbed in prison is a significant WP:ASPECT of his biography, and that's covered by WP:NPOV, not WP:N. Significant WP:ASPECTs are included in articles regardless of whether they are related to the subject's notability or not. Levivich (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly isn't. Do we have sources reflecting on the ramifications of him being stabbed in prison? no, it's mentioned exclusively by WP:BREAKING news. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crunk Energy Drink

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

This description of an obscure energy drink doesn't pass notability guidelines. Its only indication of notability is association with Lil John. We don't make Wikipedia articles on subjects that are only "famous" because of their association with something or someone else, according to notability policies. Also, only one citation, from a business journal in 2007. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and United States of America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 04:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Talat Mahmud Rafy

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

Does not meet the minimum notability requirements in any way. Somajyoti ✉ 04:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. Somajyoti ✉ 04:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See this article's history for past questionable speedy and prod tagging of the article as well as accusations of sockpuppetry. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. What was done before—what difference does that make? This doesn't meet the minimum notability requirements. The article was created by one sockpuppet account, and another sockpuppet account of the same person opposed the speedy deletion. I think it should be checked whether it currently complies with Wikipedia policy. Somajyoti ✉ 05:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom., apply G5 to save time. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 12:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryn Gries

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

Only claim to notability is that she made bigoted comments on a reality TV show. WP:BLP1E and possibly other BLP concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this a redirect to prevent it becoming an article back in 2013, with the edit summary, No article for you, racist. In spite of this, an article was created a couple of months later. Given that the controversy was in 2013, how does the nominator explain the 373,650 pageviews the article has received since July 1, 2015, which is as far back as the Pageviews Analysis tool goes? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Internet, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep admittedly this is my first time seeing this argument so I don't know if my interpretation of it was correct but one of the criteria for it seems to be " if the subjects role in the event isn't documented" and judging by the sourcing that doesn't seem to be the case multiple sources cover the controversy and some of them are years after it which seems to be lasting coverage. That said I'm new to this standard so if my analysis is wrong I'll change my vote Scooby453w (talk)

Vaiben Solomon

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

This article clearly fails wikipedia notability guidelines for people. They were apparently convicted of a crime and then became wealthy. Can't verify sources, lacks inline citation. Cautiously, I state that this article may have some themes of antisemitism, particularly the trope of "criminal jew becomes wealthy" or "jew sees the light and becomes good." AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the sources about him are difficult to track down, particularly given all the hits for his much more prominent nephew Vaiben Louis Solomon. But the 1975 journal article in the Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal definitely qualifies, and I can verify his entry in this biographical dictionary of Australian Jews. The article needs major clean-up, but those two sources are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I also just don't really see the concerns about antisemitic tropes here — a large proportion of early Australian Jewish figures were former convicts who achieved success after being transported to Australia, and I think that's just part and parcel of Jewish history in Australia. (minor COI disclaimer: I had never heard of this guy until I saw this AfD, but after reading the article it turns out he is a very distant ancestor of mine). MCE89 (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Judaism, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This article is a mess, but not TNT worthy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Montenegrin pro-government protests

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

Part of the 2022 Montenegrin crisis and doesn't have much significance to have a separate article A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Montenegro. A1Cafel (talk) 02:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gruenewald

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The current sources in the article are primary and a search elsewhere didn't reveal any significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Florida, New York, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ghuraba training camp

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

War on terrorism WP:CRUFT by a now WP:CBANed editor. Egregious failure of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and utterly lacks focused WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Qaeda safe houses, Kabul, which the community reached consensus to delete. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related pages that meet the same deletion criteria:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Terrorism, Afghanistan, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not notable, it is impossible to improve any of these articles to a satisfactory state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Montana

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are primary to the clubs Montana has played for and a search elsewhere revealed nothing but namedrops and unrelated people. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, South Carolina, and Washington. Let'srun (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Schmoll

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was 3 sentences of coverage at [[39]]. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Switzerland, England, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder scene

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

Firstly, this is not a discussion I am creating on the grounds of notability. I have no doubts that this subject is technically "notable". However, it is a clear violation of WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON, which I feel are two policies often forgotten about when creating a page (someone can make a page on something, but nobody asks if they should).

With that out of the way, I will say flat out that there is almost nothing to say about the ladder scene in MGS3 besides the fact that it exists. It can literally be summarized in a singular sentence on the lines of "At one point in the game, the player has to climb an extremely tall ladder for three minutes." Maybe give a few sentences in the reception section of the game article about how the scene was interpreted by critics or how it inspired other sections in other games, and boom. You've summarized the subject without leaving out any important information. Because no other information exists.

And to further reaffirm what I mean by that, I am the primary author of Snake Eater (song), as well as the user who got it to GA status. That song is most commonly associated with this scene. However, the song I believe warranted a spin-out because not only did it demonstrate notability, but there was information about its development and analysis of its lyrics. There is a complete article to be had there that covers all the bases that should be expected out of a spinout. Now go back to "That song is most commonly associated with this scene." As a result of that, I have basically checked every source that exists regarding this scene. For further reassurance, I also checked every source cited on this page (except the Metagaming book). Yet, there remains almost nothing to be said about the subject beyond a sentence or two and something that could easily be contained within a Reception and/or Legacy section within the article for MGS3. A proper, encyclopedic article on something like this cannot exist solely because of what critics thought of it. It needs context and reasoning as to why it should have a separate article. See WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON.

Basically, there is nothing to be said about this scene. It is "notable", but also fails WP:NOPAGE and MERGEREASON, with almost no development info or anything beyond the fact the scene exists and how journalists reacted to it. You could easily summarize this in the article for Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater with little to no consequences towards its coverage. In-fact, covering the subject in an article that actually discusses it as part of the greater subject (and therefore, giving more context) would likely benefit coverage of the scene. I suggest either a merge or a redirect to Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 01:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. Technically notable but better served in the parent article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep WP:WRONGFORUM, the nominator admits this is not a deletion discussion and that the page is notable and passes WP:GNG with significant coverage. I understand AfDing a non-notable page when you have a potential merge target in mind, but AfDing a notable page makes no real sense. Furthermore, there are plenty of standalone pages on similar equally brief gameplay topics such as Cow level and The Goat Puzzle, so its brevity has no bearing on whether it needs to be merged and the rules don't state that "short things do not deserve their own article". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is part of notability, so this is still the right place. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NOPAGE clearly states that it is meant to apply to stubs with almost no content. "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." The amount of information on this topic is far more than just a stub and there is absolutely enough content to justify a standalone page. It just does not seem like it is enough to head to AfD instead of a merge discussion (which is far more about opinions than policy violations). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it gives as examples large scale sections of presidential campaigns and whether other articles provide "needed context". Both apply here. With merge discussions, often no one will contribute besides the page creator or WikiProject members, so an AfD is better to get eyes on things. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think AfD is more frequented does not mean it can be used for any random issue. The fact is that there is NO WP:DELREASON that this page violates, and it is not a content fork and was created whole cloth. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:DELREASON is that by failing WP:NOPAGE it becomes a notability problem. Because NOPAGE is part of notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire basis of the AfD (that it "violates" NOPAGE) does not make sense. NOPAGE is a matter of opinion and is extremely vague. Which is why merge discussions even exist and you can't just point to the fact that something *could* be merged to justify starting an AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article seems lacking in a show of independent notability, and works best to improve the content of the main article(s). I also find the procedural keep argument uncompelling; as noted by Parakanyaa, an article having a NOPAGE conflict is perfectly valid as a DELREASON. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independent notability with GNG is passed; the Metagaming book has several pages on it, there are two full articles from reliable sources otherwise, and multiple paragraphs in a list, among other things. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. I find the NOPAGE argument to be a reasonable one for this discussion: there's just not enough meat on this bone to justify it being on its own, and the reception doesn't change that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Schlentz

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

Subject does not appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. The current sources in the article are primary to the clubs the subject played for and a search elsewhere didn't reveal anything that would help this subject meet the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Holliday, Ian (5 April 2025). "'It's a voter deterrent': Vancouver byelection voters face long lineups to cast their ballots". CTVNews.

[2] "Instagram". www.instagram.com.

[1]

[2]