Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 13	April 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Moreldin Mohamed Hamdi

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

Declined prod with reason "competed in Olympics". That in itself goes not guarantee notability. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sudan. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no news sources could be found in my search .Darkm777 (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I expanded the article with new WP:RS sourcing that is not SIGCOV. By virtue of competing on such a small Olympic team, achieving a personal best, and being Sudan's only hurdler, we can expect that SIGCOV would exist in Sudanese newspapers as soon as their 1970s archives are available to us, which would fulfill WP:NEXIST. --Habst (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudan at the 1972 Summer Olympics. All such BLPs must have at least one secondary source for an article. We have none. The redirect will preserve page history should any sourcing emerge such that an article can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per Sirfurboy. Added sources are pure stats and contribute nothing to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City Parks Foundation

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

Delete due to its reliance on a single source, which does not sufficiently establish the organization's notability as required by Wikipedia's guidelines. The article lacks independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the foundation's impact and activities OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OatPancake, obviously the current article sourcing is minimal, but what is your evaluation of the various book, magazine and congressional hearing sources visible from the Google Books link above? AllyD (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for a response to AllyD's query.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve added sourcing from the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation, Reuters, and New York Times (x3), all WP:RS. They cover the Foundation and its flagship SummerStage program. While the NYT articles are partially behind a paywall, they meet WP:NEXIST. Even with unsourced content removed, it passes WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapyard (mixtape)

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

Does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Half of the sources are from Twitter while the rest are seemingly from student newspapers, which do not contribute to notability. The only reliable source from WP:A/S used here is HotNewHipHop, but an album needs at least 3-4 reliable sources from A/S to pass for notability. Locust member (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 31 March 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 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Sources 13 and 15 are a RS, an album review. KTLA is non-trivial coverage. The rest are student publications, but we have some critical notice, weak but it's there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: OP is correct that student newspapers are the main sources cited. Doesn't pass for notability. Zzendaya (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamzeh Najafimehr

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

Non-notable individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. A quick source analysis:

A patent, a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
Permanent dead links: [1], [2])
An article in Iran's state-run, unreliable Islamic Republic News Agency which is then reprinted or forms the source for bloggy coverage: [3], [4], [5].
An article from the questionably reliable Iranian Students' News Agency (one of the permanently dead links above) that was reprinted in additional sources: [6], [7].
Self-promotional content: [8], [9].

The major editor of the page has after the fact disclosed a conflict of interest and it appears that the purpose of the page is to promote a non-notable individual. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As the editor who has contributed to improving this article, I acknowledge a potential conflict of interest and therefore refrain from voting on the outcome. Nevertheless, I would like to provide the following clarifications:

The article has been significantly updated with numerous reliable and independent sources that demonstrate the subject's notability in accordance with Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG).

The individual has received multiple international invention awards under the supervision or endorsement of WIPO, including:

• Gold Medal at the Thailand Inventions Expo 2024

• Silver Medal at the Seoul International Invention Fair (SIIF) 2023

• Bronze Medal and Special Prize at the Geneva International Exhibition of Inventions 2024

These events are among the most recognized global exhibitions in the field of invention and innovation, and are not affiliated with the subject in any commercial or promotional way.

Furthermore, the article is supported by in-depth, non-trivial coverage from multiple major news agencies, including IRNA, ISNA, Hamshahri, Khabar Online, Verna Magazine, and Iran Front Page. The subject also has a verified Google Knowledge Panel in both English and Persian.

I kindly request that independent editors review the current version based on content, sources, and alignment with Wikipedia’s notability policies before reaching a final conclusion.

Thank you.

Memareaval (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Dclements1971,

Thank you for your detailed comments. I would like to clarify that the sources previously marked as “dead links” are currently active and fully functional:

• WIPO Patent Document: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2023012775

• ISNA News Report: https://www.isna.ir/amp/1403020604416/

Both sources are verifiable and directly support the statements in the article. Please consider rechecking them.

Respectfully,

–Memareaval (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran, People, and Engineering. 14:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacklyn Frank

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

Fails WP:NSUBPOL. A member of a 1,600-population local council with minimal coverage in reliable sources is not notable enough for a standalone article. CROIX^talk 14:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Antigua and Barbuda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for Jacklyn or Jackie Frank, I find that she was one of two people who challenged the government of Antigua and Barbuda over the construction of the new airport, which started while residents of the island of Barbuda were evacuated to Antigua during Hurricane Irma. (See [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. The challenge went to the Privy Council in London. This is not currently mentioned anywhere - perhaps it could be included in the article Burton–Nibbs International Airport, or in the article on Barbuda#History#Modern history. I am not sure yet if there is sufficient coverage of Jackie Frank to warrant a stand-alone article - I'll keep looking. If not, an ATD could be to redirect or merge to Chairperson of the Barbuda Council (where she is named) or Barbuda People's Movement (where she is not currently named). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Legal Services Authority

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

Non-notable GraziePrego (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this nomination does not show signs of WP:BEFORE. PULSA as a government body, working across the state. " In Punjab such kinds of lok adalats are conducted under the Punjab Legal Services Authority. It takes up the various kinds of cases and is settled under this lok adalat." ([16]) See for example [17], [18], [19]. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They exist, but coverage I find is only where they've provided legal services and are only mentioned. The one source now in the article isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. But it looks like a possible No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Liaison Officer

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

Little sources avaliable, no notability. Article is unencyclopedic as well. This article was created in 2006 by a brand new editor with little changes since. GoldRomean (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (and improve/move to Garda National Youth Diversion Bureau or Garda National Youth Diversion Programme). As noted in the nom, the article at this title is/was something of a disaster. However, I don't think that WP:DYNAMITE is the answer here. In my own WP:BEFORE it seems that the titular subject (a "Garda Juvenile Liaison Officer" or "JLO") acts under the Garda Youth Diversion Programme. (As per this source and this one and here). While the concept of a "JLO" is discussed in several sources (like here or here or here), I'm not sure the role/job/class of Gardaí has independent notability. However, the program of which they are part, the Garda Youth Diversion Programme, possibly is. And so I'd recommend that the article be moved to that title. And updated to cover that programme/bureau. With a small amount of the role of a JLO, within the bureau, covered by sources like this. Failing that, we could merge/redirect some of the text to the Garda Síochána title. And cover it WP:WITHIN that title. Guliolopez (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I'm not sure it warrant more than a few lines on Garda Síochána. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kala Manickam

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. There are no sources that cover the subject substantially. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Singapore. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not fully added onto the page yet - but there's a lot more sources from local media about her, hence there is certainly a lot more sources to add Aidanic (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnar Shankar

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

Article is poorly written and fails GNG. GoldRomean (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:TNT To explain, Ponnar and Shankar are two twin brothers who are the subject of a Tamil epic poem, and this folk story is actually what the article is attempting to refer to. It should be named something like Ponnar Shankar (poem), or perhaps as the Tamil language article calls it, "Annamar Sami Kathai". The poem is the inspiration for the film Ponnar Shankar (film). It actually seems like the poem might be notable as there is a book by Brenda Beck just about the epic. However, the article as it stands literally links exclusively to sources which discuss the film - the few I looked at do not even include a passing mention the poem which inspired it. Very much open to a keep on WP:HEY grounds, I just unfortunately do not have time to salvage the article. Flip^and Flopped ツ 00:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Twilight Sparkle, Teacher for a Day

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

Non-notable app; no secondary coverage whatsoever ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Software. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are already reviews from Kirkus, Common Sense Media, and Wired in the article. I also found mentions in Kotaku and 148Apps. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. I think it toes the line of passing and not passing GNG, but there is a clear merge target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. MidnightMayhem 14:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reviews in Wired, CSM and Kirkus Reviews are enough for GNG. The article needs better sourcing and probably could do with some expansion but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Pamzeis (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Pamzeis that the Wired, Common Sense Media, and Kirkus Reviews reviews already on the article appear to meet GNG. 148Apps is noted as a situational source on WP:VG/RS, but the review linked by Vacant0 is also fairly in-depth. Waxworker (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pamzeis and Waxworker above. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 06:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments are divided between Merge and Keep, not headed towards a Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the sources are enough to pass GNG (though the article could definitely be improved).

I originally supported merging to the MLP article, but I changed my mind, since the MLP article only has a very general overview of other media in the "Other Media" section. Weak support for a stand-alone article. ApexParagon (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Smellmitment

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one piece of secondary coverage, and it's completely routine. Can be merged to Old Spice#Advertising. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Some coverage in RS [20], [21]. But !delete is probably fine, these are thin articles in RS. Sourcing now in the article is only in PR/advertising items I'd consider primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think merging info from this article to The Man Your Man Could Smell Like would be most appropriate. Would need someone to put in the work + probably create a new section about follow on campaigns. In the absence of a merge, I would say weak keep for this article.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Created by a blocked editor (Demeter39G) using a sockpuppet yo rvade blocks on two accounts. JBW (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Arsenault

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

Wikipedia is not news. WP:NOTNEWS. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, and also WP:BLP1E, although he just recently died, the guideline is still applicable. There is only coverage in the context of a single event, and subject is more than likely to remain a low-profile individual. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with this point. Many of the news outlets also included in-depth coverage of this person's life. They are all reliable secondary sources.

The fact that the person was incredibly notable within the rescue community does not make him any less notable. He was a prominent figure, and his contributions were widely known. It is very unfortunate that he received global attention only after his death. Nonetheless, that does not make him any less notable. He had been one of the most prominent rescuers in the country and in the state of New York for almost 20 years.

As Wikipedia guidelines state, notability is not something Wikipedia can create or confer. He was a notable individual, and his work received recognition. The fact that his work received global media coverage after his death, does not make him less notable .

There are a lot of news, and I agree Wikipedia is not a news site. But many sources cover his life and what he did, and how contributed to the rescue community.

I did not know about him until he died, but after reading all the sources providing detailed descriptions of his 20 years of work, I decided to create this page, to honor his legacy and contributions. It is an unusual case, he was saving animals and not people. Animals do not usually get into the news as much. Moondust342 (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google returned older sources, too. Newsday in 2016, CBS New York in 2016, apparently some Animal Planet show in 2017, The Dodo in 2018... The fire was covered by the AP and was picked up by various national media. Unclear if the article should be Happy Cat Sanctuary or Chris Arsenault. Not 100% sure we're at WP:ORG or WP:BIO yet, but it's not just a one event situation at least. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I found an older article from 2023 writing about Chris. It is obvious that he did not receive an Oscar or something similar, but he seems to be a prominent rescuer widely known in the entire state of New York. https://sociallifemagazine.com/2023/01/28/11232/ This situation made me cry when I saw it in the news.

I was hesitant to create a page about the sanctuary itself for WP:ORG because it had burned down. From what I understood from the news, he was working on building a new location for the sanctuary, and that’s where the surviving cats would be moved. Moondust342 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found a New York Post article from 2018. https://nypost.com/2018/02/05/man-transforms-his-house-into-sanctuary-for-300-cats/

Daily Mail 2016 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5346251/Medford-man-opens-cat-sanctuary-300-felines.html

Metro 2018 https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/05/man-transforms-home-sanctuary-300-cats-7288992/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondust342 (talk • contribs) 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Delete: The sanctuary might be notable, most articles are about that rather than the person himself. These are mostly local sources, there isn't much about him outside of the area. The foreign articles used for sourcing are about the shelter/rescue. Oaktree b (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 sources are about him specifically, him as a rescuer, and history of building a sanctuary. Besides, there are no limitations as to local sources to establish notability on Wikipedia. All these sources are reliable secondary sources covering the subject - the man. If his occupation is rescuing cats and he is notable for that, with wide coverage, there doesn’t need to be ten articles about his childhood or some kind of life outside it—because that’s irrelevant.

1.https://nypost.com/2018/02/05/man-transforms-his-house-into-sanctuary-for-300-cats/

2.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5346251/Medford-man-opens-cat-sanctuary-300-felines.html

3https://metro.co.uk/2018/02/05/man-transforms-home-sanctuary-300-cats-7288992/ Moondust342 (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to help your case much with those three. See WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST, WP:METRO. But just to be clear, Oaktree b the content doesn't change that much if it's about the person or the sanctuary, since the sanctuary is just this person's house. The either/or becomes a question of whether this should be moved/rescoped, not deleted (not that I'm fully persuaded to keep yet myself). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to contradict you. Just adding more information. In addition to the sources you added @Rhododendrites, I also added some to the article. Plus these sources are dated between 2013-2024. It is clear that his work as a rescuer has received coverage over the years, along with recognition for his efforts. I feel uncomfortable to say that the subject is not notable "enough" for a Wikipedia page, while he has been widely discussed by the press prior to this and on international level, especially after his death.

Out of the 20 or so sources listed in the article, I think are at least about 4–5 clearly reliable sources that provide detailed coverage sufficient to establish the notability of Chris Arsenault as a prominent rescuer.

Question is how much more coverage a rescuer saving animals can get for his efforts? If you try to google other cat rescuers, it would be hard to find many people with the same coverage he has. There is ABC, CBS, Animal planet. I'd say, objectively, this is the most coverage a prominent cat rescuer can get. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and his contributions clearly seem to be worth recording. I'm just a random person who was touched by his story.

Many people worldwide are Googling this person now, wanting to read about him. It is harder for people to find older articles because all the recent coverage is about his tragic death. I think this article has merit.

Plus, even the WP:NYPOST articles do not seem to have some kind of promotional language, or paid notes, rather than just sharing a story about a man with 300 cats.

https://telegrafi.com/en/ktheu-shtepine-ne-strehe-luksoze-per-300-mace-nder-tjerash-shtreter-dhe-pula-te-pjekura-ne-darke-foto-video/

https://www.wideopenspaces.com/this-man-runs-a-cat-sanctuary-out-of-his-house/

https://iheartcats.com/man-creates-a-sanctuary-for-homeless-cats-in-honor-of-the-son-he-lost/?srsltid=AfmBOopfxPqzg17p1fqqc6fiOGOFRtg_PUu6iy_CCej6zlhEgcYuJzrC

https://www.odditycentral.com/animals/new-york-man-turns-his-home-into-a-sanctuary-for-hundreds-of-cats.html Moondust342 (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New article- https://people.com/over-160-cats-found-dead-after-fire-erupts-kills-owner-11713811 Moondust342 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suppose the points above are valid, I don't really see notability, just a guy that had lots of cats. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom on WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E even though the BLP1E is a BLP2E - he rescued cats then he died presumably trying to save the cats. The quality of the sources is a big clue - there are a few reliable news sources (CBS, ABC) with typically brief "this is a 45 second human interest story." TV news rarely provides in depth information. Some of the sources are on the "not reliable" list (WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST, WP:METRO). Of the remainder, none are what I would call "stellar" sources and some are just odd, like the Kosovo paper and the Hindustan Times, not to mention "iheartcats" and "lovemeow". These short articles merely reproduce the same story without adding anything new. They also tend to use the same photos which I assume means that their main source of information was his web site (thus not independent). Lamona (talk) 00:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your point about the pictures. If someone used photos provided on the website for an article, that does not make the source non-independent. They wrote whatever they wanted for the piece. A journalist doesn’t have to travel to New York to take pictures if they want to do a story on this person. Moondust342 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. But if they provide no information that can't be found on the person's web site then their writing cannot be considered independent. To put it another way, I see no evidence that any research was done, but plenty that there was quite a bit of lazy copying. The pictures are just a hint, but don't change my conclusion. Lamona (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV minus a drop of BLP1E. I removed the worst of the deprecated sources; sometimes less is more. There has been wall-to-wall coverage of this event. It's lasting longer than most news stories because ... will someone please think of the kittens. The subject was a friend of a friend of a friend, according to what I can tell from social media: not a surprise if you know me IRL. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is clearly not a Speedy outcome and I think this discussion could use a bit more times. If you are looking for sources and mentioning them here, you might also select the outcome, Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect or Draftify, that you think would be the best resolution here in addition to your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 14 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.

Carson Community Center

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

Community Center that fails WP:NBUILDING and WP:SIGCOV, and has been unsourced since 2008. This article was also PRODed back in 2008, which was withdrawn for an AFD that never happened. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. From what little I've found online it looks to be a non-notable local building. Golem08 (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4T – Vietnam Youth Education Support Center

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

Upon searching up the subject, I do not see any reliable sources that can be added to the current article. Also, the current article only references primary sources. WormEater13 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Vietnam. WormEater13 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Leebaert

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

Non-notable, self published article. Nearly all references (which are poorly sourced anyways) are unused in the actual article. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Leerbaert has written at least a half dozen books that have been reviewed in peer-reviewed academic journals. Unfortunately, most of what is in the article is unsourced, which violates BLP rules. I looked for more bio info based on what is in the article but have not found it. I will try to at least get the weightier reviews into the article, and will mark ^{[citation needed]} where I will be looking for sources. Lacking sources, though, the article will need to be greatly reduced. Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Example reviews:

Reviewed Work: Soviet Military Thinking. by Derek Leebaert

Review by: Jeffrey T. Richelson

Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 97, No. 3 (Autumn, 1982), pp. 554-556 (3 pages) https://doi.org/10.2307/2150041

Immerman, Richard. 2019. Grand Improvisations: America Confronts the British Superpower, 1945-1957. Derek Leebaert. Journal of American History. Vol. 134. p. 818 doi: 10.1093/jahist/jaz636
Hirschey, Mark. 1984. What Role for Government? Lessons from Policy Research. Richard J. Zeckhauser Derek Leebaert. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 22. pp. 1122-1123

Lamona (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've made many changes to the article and have found some good reviews (good = reliable sources) for his books. I have yet to find anything independent for biographical information, so all of that may either need to be sourced to non-independent sources or be removed. I do not know what to do about the WP:COI, aka AUTOBIOGRAPHY. As the changes have all been done with an IP (and the same IP) I would suggest blocking that IP, even though it's easy to get around that. I'll add some COI notices. Lamona (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for information on COI. I will also remove unsourced BLP content. What's left will help me see if there is enough to keep. Lamona (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by blocked sock puppet. Subject is not notable. Mostly edited by IPs and may indicate COI issues. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Book reviews in the New York Times [22] -archived, and the Wall Street Journal [23], plus the academic journal ones listed elsewhere, easily passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject appears to be notable as seen from the improvement by uninvolved editors, especially Lamona. I'm waiting for others to comment before !voting on this autobiography. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Immigration Council

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

Fails WP:NORG. Lack of WP:SIGCOV. Barely even any WP:FLEETING coverage or WP:SECONDARY of its reports or actions. Longhornsg (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. Longhornsg (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have sufficient secondary sources in reputable publications. wound theology ◈ 22:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Provide them? I'm seeing two citations of research. Longhornsg (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Sharda

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

Article subject is a child who got a couple of human interest pieces in local news when they started a nonprofit. A single purpose account decided to dodge the AFC queue after getting a decline on their draft (and COI warning besides), so here we are at AFD. There is no sustained coverage, and no real biographical details. This is a clear case of a WP:BLP1E and ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; I suspect a WP:COI issue as well. wound theology ◈ 22:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While there is some coverage of debatable significance, the COI point seems strong. Garsh (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Garsh2 @Wound theology. With all due respect, would I be able to provide you both some context in hopes of getting you both to reconsider your votes? WP:COI isn't the subject of this AfD, and even so, i've already disclosed in the past to MrOllie twice that I don't have a COI, and if I did, I would declare it. An article can be rewritten itself, but notability can't be changed, no matter how good an article is. The nominator (MrOllie) proposed that the article is WP:BLP1E and does not merit its own article about the subject itself, but the subject of the article is high-profile (intentionally seeking coverage about themselves or such through interviews, PR, etc), and their independent, reliable coverage has been sustained and not a quick burst. Given this, I would believe that the article falls into WP:GNG, but this is a debatable point, because the subject is a minor. At the very least, if you still believe that the article does not meet WP:GNG, I believe draftification would be a significantly better better option, given that notability is borderline/debatable here. Liahuu (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article is not high-profile nor are the sources sustained. The subject is not notable as a coder nor as an author but simply as a 12-year-old who started a nonprofit. Founding a nonprofit is not notable in and of itself; I did it myself my senior year. WP:BLP1E still stands and WP:COI has not been sufficiently addressed. wound theology ◈ 13:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi @MrOllie! Much thanks for your explanation and review on this subject. I just wanted to clarify a few points.

First, you mention that I have a conflict of interest with the subject. You've already given me a COI warning on my talk page in the past, and i've appropriately responded to such answering that I am aware of such policy and will be disclosing any conflicts of interests I have with any subject. In this case, my reply explicitly mentioned that I do not have a connection to the subject. I also explicitly mentioned this to you on your talk page, for a different (but relevant) draft.
You're also falsely claiming that my account is a "single purpose account" - when, in reality, you're basing this claim off of the action I took to move my draft into the article space. Dodging the AFC queue is not inherently prohibited for autoconfirmed users, and given the long wait time, I explicitly clarified in my edit summary that I would be skipping a AFC review to get a review by a NPP in a faster time frame. You also claim "after getting a decline on their draft" - but if you noticed, that declined draft version was from early March 2025. If I had genuine ill intentions for Wikipedia, I could have easily dodged the AfC process, far earlier, and moved my rejected draft into the mainspace. I made a large amount of edits before resubmitting, and eventually moving my draft into the mainspace.
I would also like to mention that your review of my article about this subject is unjust - you proposed the deletion of my article 20 minutes after it was created, which is clearly in violation of WP:NPPHOUR, as the article does not qualify for speedy deletion or PROD.
"There is no sustained coverage" - there are plenty of reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject, and over a sustained period of time. As you can see, the first article covering the kid founding the nonprofit was on January 2, 2024, while there are sources as late as June 2024 covering the kid founding the nonprofit. There's also coverage about the kid's nonprofit starting a new program, etc and the kid's coding skills. Compared to a traditional WP:BLP1E, this spike of coverage has been sustained and the kid is still "relevant", which is a indicator of notability. The subject further doesn't qualify for WP:BLP1E because they are not a low-profile figure, and (no offense) have made attempts to self-promote through press releases, scheduled interviews, and more, which, by definition, makes them a high-profile figure.
Could the article be expanded? Of course. This wasn't something I immediately did, especially given that the subject is WP:CHILD, and I don't want to write too much about them. However, I do definitely think that there are areas of improvement.
A huge majority of your statements seem to WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL - inaccurately portraying the context of the situation. I would strongly ask that you take edits from new editors like me with WP:GOODFAITH. I would love to discuss any potential issues, but would love to do so in a civil manner, instead of making false, slanderous claims.

Liahuu (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that you are a single purpose account is not a 'false claim' - 100% of your editing is either about this person or their nonprofit. You've had more than a month to work on your draft, WP:NPPHOUR clearly does not apply - all that really matters in this AFD is that the coverage is not sufficient to demonstrate notability, and your decision to push for an article anyway. Trying to turn this around and making it about me personally will not change that. - MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, i'm not trying to change the topic of this AfD onto you, and I apologize if you feel that way. Claiming that i'm a "single purpose account", though, is personally insulting to me (WP:CIVIL), given that you aren't aware of the future contributions I intend to make on this platform, and simply claiming me as a marketing/spam account is highly offensive and slander when i've clearly mentioned that I don't have a conflict of interest about the subject, and if I did, I would have declared that. However, the COI is not the topic of this AfD, so here's my take on notability.

As for notability, I have mentioned this in my previous answer, but there is a sufficient amount of notability for the subject, which is the primary concern here and the reason this article has been nominated for AfD. WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here because the subject is high-profile (subject has intentionally decided to seek coverage and have published press releases in the past), and they've received sustained coverage (not a burst of coverage in a month or two). By means of WP:GNG, the subject is notable due to independent coverage in multiple sources. Liahuu (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As MrOllie (talk · contribs) explained, as it stands, you are a single-purpose editor. Possible intent to make future contributions elsewhere are irrelevant. Your only edits on Wikipedia have been related to TLEEM and Sharda, therefore you are a single-purpose editor. It really is that simple, and MrOllie was not being uncivil by pointing this out. Nor did he claim you were a marketing or spam account. You are casting aspersions which is itself uncivil. You should also read WP:WIKILAWYER. wound theology ◈ 13:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Engineering, Mathematics, Technology, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note the Random Dude Here (talk · contribs) and Animelofi123 (talk · contribs). There only edits were to add WP:COI notices to their own user pages regarding this page, which presumably didn't exist. wound theology ◈ 13:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ariyan Mehedi

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

This page has been repeatedly deleted before, across multiple projects. The current version has slightly more claim to fame than previous versions, but much of it is hard to substantiate, and seems to involve uncredited roles and future productions. I'm filing this to solicit wider input on whether this is notable or a hoax or whatever. See also d:Q124623766, d:Q126717587, d:Q120914485, d:Q131376725, d:Q115772746, d:Q117447146, d:Q112063211, d:Q117834202, d:Q120235847, d:Q125793373. Bovlb (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Bovlb (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also globally locked User:Ahhabib24 and User:Dxbnetwork who have an interest in this topic. Bovlb (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I trying to talk with him. Maturealert (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space. Not a hoax, but IMO fails to satisfy WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Among the refbombs I fished only two that may be described as "nontrivial coverage".
- This one, written by "Team Nettv4u" of unknown credentials, beyond birth date, school and college, gives zero impartial info, full of boundless hype, so can be rightly dismissed/
- This one a bit better, but again little more than a list of his songs, "popular" but of unknown rating.

The rest looks like non-independent sources and adverts of film releases. But I admit there may be something. Let it incubate while the creator user:Maturealert (who is here only for 2 weeks) learns our rules of WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, WP:RS, WP:BLP --Altenmann >talk 22:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Draft:Ariyan Mehedi has been deleted 8 times.

CC @Robert McClenon Bovlb (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notability of artists and singers changes over time. I do agree that abandoned drafts must be deleted, though --Altenmann >talk 23:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, He is now Notable. He worked for the film Gladiator II and also De De Pyaar De 2. kindly, cheak reference links also. Maturealert (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon (signal fire)

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

The article Beacon (signal fire) duplicates information already covered in the Beacon article and exists entirely within its scope. The majority of the page is entirely unsourced, other than two WP:Self-published sources within popular culture. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Lea 4545 (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The beacon article is too broad. The early warning system has its own Wikidata object. The idea with it is to port over relevant information from beacon and instead describe it shortly in the main beacon article with a link to the specific subarticle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhaj (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beacon#For defensive communications (historical). Wikidata objects do not confer notability. This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Travel Mart

AfDs for this article:

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

Is clearly WP:PROMO. Little to know sources talking about it. Fails WP:GNG and all of the sources are press releases Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Travel and tourism, India, Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:An editor had edited a name change on the article and broken the link to this AFD. Ihave restored that and am adding a Findsources for the alternate name here. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience. I was just looking at the article as someone mentioned it on my talk page. The article title itself is incorrect, but after a Google search, I found several notable sources for the topic, and I have added some of them, including rewriting some parts. Aryan^{Talk} 23:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still primary sources or passing mentions. Primary sources do not qualify as reliable sources. Press releases and media outlets just repeating the press release do not count. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast India International Tourism Mart: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore–Travancore war

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

The article is built upon clear original synthesis. No historian presents a War where one sided Mysore, Kingdom of France, the Marathas, and the Dutch where the opponents as Travancore supported by East India company and Kochin. What even surprises is as of mentioned here, the victory didn't favour to the Mysore where they both conflicted at Battle of Nedumkotta. Contents could be merged to the Mysorean invasion of Malabar by extending the scope of that article by replacing Malabar by Kerala and removing the result section. This article is clear synthesis of the author. Hionsa (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, Karnataka, and Kerala. Hionsa (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Historians do mention this event, check Page number 154–164 , Battle of Nedumkotta wasn't the last conflict between the two as per the sources mentions after this battle, Tipu Sultan invaded Travancore defeated Rama Varma or Dharma Raja , successfully captured Kodungallur, and forced the Raja to surrender Ayicottta and Paravur. This conflict led to the beginning of the Third Anglo-Mysore War Shakakarta (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a single mention of the title? That's not enough, and I can see that the given pages doesn't represent the war as shown in the article. And the your statement about the post-conflicts after Nedumkotta, it's original research mate. Hionsa (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Check the sources which I have cited, they mention the post conflicts after Nedumkotta, [24] refer page number 166–168 also this books doesn't only mention the title but has a coverage of nearly ten pages Shakakarta (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrix Mine Sports Complex

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

Article is completely unnotable. The only mention from a news source I could really find is a snippet from a small newspaper (https://issuu.com/ncexpress/docs/expresses_20140917/7). The article is also about a location within a location that doesn't even have an article itself. The article is also unsourced and an orphan. There hasn't really been any significant additions to the article since its creation. But like I said, most importantly, it fails notability requirements. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Football, and South Africa. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to include the deletion category when nominating with twinkle, if someone knows how to add that, doing so would be very helpful :) Gaismagorm (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an easy enough fix with the deletion sorting tool I use (and in any case only involves changing the parameter of {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} — sorting these categories any other way adds the category to more pages than intended; I had to clean that up in another nomination yesterday). (No opinion on this article.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, and it looks like it was sorted into a category. Thanks for the cool gadget suggestion though! Gaismagorm (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Law and Mr. Lee

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

This is not a film, but a TV pilot (for CBS) that was filmed and not picked up - an extremely common occurrence in TV. It never aired and it never will, despite this implying it did in 2003. Coverage is routine for pilot production. DoubleCross (‡) 17:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Film, and Television. DoubleCross (‡) 17:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no claim of significance, and I can’t find any source talking about this pilot, besides IMDB (not reliable) and some random blog. Given the extremely short article and utter lack of coverage, it doesn’t seem like there’s much to write about it. ApexParagon (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable television pilot, certainly not a film. Nathannah • 📮 18:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some confirmation [25] but it's purely fan sites or imdb listings. This is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Danny_Glover_filmography#Television. If there was confirmation it had aired or otherwise received a release it could redirect to List of American films of 2003, but we don't have that so filmography it is. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaplan Law School

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

Article about a defunct for-profit UK legal training centre lacking reliable, third party sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Primarily a puff piece designed to promote the (now non-existent) organization. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as a section of Nottingham Law School, for which it provided some services, and with which its degrees were affiliated. BD2412 T 18:47, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BD2412. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BD2412 makes the most sense and the content does not pass to be SPLIT into this separate article. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominator, I have no objection to the community's leaning toward merge if the ultimate decision is not to delete. This specific article has so few (1! - and that has one sentence in total) sources that any merge probably needs to refer to the parent, Kaplan, Inc., or to be merged into that article rather than any other, as the Kaplan Inc. article at least has a few references to a relationship with Nottingham Trent University and to Kaplan having been selected in 2018 as being authorized to deliver the SQE (Solicitors Qualifying Exam). Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further responses in light of Geoff's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per BD2412. My first thought was to redirect to Kaplan, Inc. which I think is an alternative option, but BD2412's probably makes more sense. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge to Kaplan, Inc. just to clarify. This should be closed out now in that direction. Total consensus for it. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎. Deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Scream (game series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Like many mobile games, it suffers from the problem that nobody writes about free-to-play mobile games, even if they are extensively downloaded. No reliable source coverage to be found. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've only found passing mentions on Pocket Gamer, see [26] [27], [28]. There is, however, no significant coverage of these games in reliable sources. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW Keep‎. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Origin NS-31

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

This was not a notable launch, as this happens regularly. Blue Origin has many of the new shepherd rockets in their roster. This is also only important due to the fact that Katy Perry, and other celebrities were on this flight. Does not meet WP:N. This is also WP:NOTNEWS . If there is another consensus i have another proposal Merge with New Shepard. Shaneapickle (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. No, all spaceflights on Wikipedia are catalogued this way, a "famous" person has nothing to do with this. If this were an issue as claimed, why wasn't this proposed anywhere for the last 5 years where these have been flying? Seems to be a case of someone only hearing about this for he first time do to connection with a celebrity, not realizing that these flights are always cataloged as such regardless of whose on board "it has a famous person so it should be removed". In that regard, it would be smart to leave these articles to the editors who routinely work on the spaceflight Wikipedia, not one whose just now heard of this and are trying to remove it for a silly reason. These aren't created because of the person abord, it's created so that a cohesive list of all human spaceflights exists across Wikipedia. This article would have existed no matter the crew abord. Jrcraft Yt (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, read the last part of my deletion proposal, it says "that it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:NOTNEWS" Shaneapickle (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable as a human spaceflight, with one where the first Bahamian flew to space. Should we remove a bunch of Shuttle flights for being mundane? How about flights to the ISS, as you could just merge them with the ISS article? Jrcraft Yt (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All New Shepard suborbital Crew missions NS-16 to 31, have pages, so it doesn't make sense to remove. Even Virgin Galactic missions Galactic 1 to 7 have pages of the missions they did suborbital. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, then all pages of orbital missions should be removed: Space Shuttle, Soyuz, Dragon etc. Lazaro Fernandes (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting this much more simply, this is a WP:IDLI nom. Deletion is not happening here, and merging is a pie in the sky proposal too. Just because it involved non-astronauts doesn't mean the article is invalidated, and though it's mainly a publicity flight it still happened and was considered a success. Nathannah • 📮 18:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spaceflight is not yet routine or safe enough where there are occurrences that don't merit an article. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}}, which was not fully applied here. (Indeed, the syntax was apparently copied from another nomination; "edits since nomination" was pointing to a revision of Dov Shafrir.) No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging all New Shepard missions to that article would make it too long. 19:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Keep In addition to the day-of coverage in reliable sources like the NYT or BBC, there was in depth coverage and analysis in reliable sources stemming back weeks prior to the event: see e.g. this Sydney Morning Herald article or the Elle cover from two weeks prior to launch. CBC was covering it as far back as February. The critical op ed from the Sydney Morning Herald as well as this Toronto Star piece demonstrate WP:DEPTH, the months-long duration of coverage meets WP:LASTING, and the diversity of sources from global newspapers meets WP:GEOSCOPE. WP:NEVENT is passed. Just because something is "in the news" does not mean WP:NOTNEWS negates notability if GNG is passed. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 19:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The other New Shepard "spaceflights" all have their own articles, along with most space missions (i.e. all of the Apollo missions or Gemini missions aren't lumped together with their respective program, nor are the hundred plus shuttle missions. Cooluncle55 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 331dot - until such point that spaceflights are considered a routine occurrence in the same way that normal flights are, then maybe we can be selective with which ones warrant articles. Right now, they're in a similar category to solar eclipses and general elections, where every single occurrence is automatically notable. In any case, this strikes me as a very WP:POINTY nomination as we're arguing to delete an article on a spaceflight that has actually had much more news coverage than many of the ones before it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 14 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.

Dov Shafrir

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

My WP:BEFORE results in insufficient sources and especially WP:RELIABLESOURCES for this to pass WP:GNG. The mention at best should be cited in another article about Palestinian re-settlement, but this person does not meet GNG for an article unto themself. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Loads of sources, in the scholarshp and news: passes WP:ANYBIO. Senior character in the newly-independent Isreal government: passes WP:NPOL. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps there's an appropriate redirect or merge target. All the sources added today are not coverage about Shafrir, and there were no sources presented that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV of Shafrir himself to satisfy WP:NBIO. From looking through the sources, these are simply singular, mostly single-line mentions of Shafrir's appointment in 200+ page books. We've deleted based on far more coverage. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Longhornsg (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two links that provide basic biographical details; per WP:BASIC multiple sources can be combined in lieu of significant coverage. His involvement in the redistribution of Palestinian property is of historical interest and his work is well documented (e.g, in this encyclopedia entry which quotes his report at length. The fact that other deletions proceeded under supposedly analogous circumstances is a non sequitur. Oblivy (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"...trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" So then it must just then be proven that these are not routine coverage or passing mentions in order for WP:BASIC to qualify. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lupien

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not all automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to have a significant volume and depth of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them and their work: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this just goes "biographical background, elected twice, running for mayor this year, the end", which isn't what we need to see for content, and it's referenced to one primary source and three hits of cursory verification of her election results, which isn't what we need to see for sourcing.
People also do not get articles just for standing as candidates in future elections they haven't already won, so declaring her candidacy for mayor isn't a notability boost either. Rochester is a large enough city that she'll likely become eligible for an article if she wins the mayoral election once the ballots have been counted, but mayoral candidates don't get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se.
Simply existing as a city councillor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt this article from having to have a lot more substance, and a lot more sources to support it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New York. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This particular Wikipedia page is not exhaustive, but provides baseline biographical information for a major political figure in Rochester, NY. Holding public office does not entitle one to a Wikipedia page, however significance to regional culture, politics, history, etc. has long been used to deem eligibility of a Wikipedia page. Notable events, people, and places in Rochester often face barriers to entry in public forums given the diminishment or dismissal of their significance without due diligence to the media environment. Basic research on Mary Lupien in particular will point to her involvement in the aftermath of Daniel Prude's Killing, coverage of Rochester area policymaking, political dynamics in Western New York, national headline grabbing resistance to JD Vance, and public discourse on the Democratic Party. I understand that the current state of this page is minimal, but that was the point in creating it. Mary Lupien is a figure regularly discussed in media and government, so my intent is to create a framework for Wikipedia users to engage with and expand. As one person, I cannot in good faith attempt to singe-handedly source every substantive detail relevant to this or any topic. However, as a frequent user and participant in Rochester's local knowledge sharing, I can absolutely attest to the relevance and significance of Mary Lupien and numerous other topics. With pages like this, novice contributors with unique insights are punished for either 1) not adding enough information at one point in time or 2) creating too much bias or the perception thereof in what information is included. I am attempting to avoid this by sticking with easily sourced information on a topic significant to my community. The notability of this page's topic is absolutely significant enough to remain in the public forum at the very least to create a base for other users to contribute to. Swadd27 (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks, nominator--now there's nothing I can add as a reason for deletion! Drmies (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage is about her run for mayor or about saying things JD Vance didn't agree with [29], [30], I don't really see these as being notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now until the election is over. She might win and then we'd bring it back anyways. Jeanette The keeper Martin (si?) 02:26, 14 April, 2025 (UTC)
Redirect or selective merge into 2025 Rochester mayoral election. She's barely below the threshold for notability. We've deleted many articles about candidates per NPOL. If she wins, the edit history is saved and the article can be re-created easily. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrapod

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

Article nothing more than a mere dictionary definition. I searched it in google, but the only things I found were search results for quadrupeds, and 4-legged robot reveals by different companies that has the name "quadrapod". With nothing for the actual term Quadrapod meaning 4 legged robots. Furthermore, the wikipedia page doesn't have any sources whatsoever. The article was actually proposed for deletion, more information on its talk page. But I still believe this article has no chance, so want to bring this up here. Yelps :/ critique me 14:57, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references and a single line of content. I checked to if it is a brand name, but it isn't. I could not find anything via search engine to indicate quadrapod is a name for 4 leg robots.--FeralOink (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a real word - I've used it in class - but this is a DICDEF, and a full article would be difficult to create. Soft delete in case it gets covered more. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Xinmin

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

Questionable whether there was any WP:SUSTAINED notability here to merit any article. Amigao (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Terrorism. Skynxnex (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Coverage has continued years after his death; this source is from 2020. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low taper fade Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low taper fade (meme)

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

~~Too massive to stay on wikipedia~~ (no reliable sources, fails WP:GNG) ProtobowlAddict ^talk! 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The meme is popular, but not notable enough or long-lasting to have an article. Needs more information and reliable sources Thegoofhere (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - i originally approved it from draft. popular meme, and saw that there was at least a rolling stone article and Yahoo News article, which are both on WP:RSP and suggest notability. Daily Dot is also on WP:RSP, though we are supposed to attribute it. That also seemed to indicate notability.

The other sourcing probably can't prove notability, agreed, but I edited after the fact to cite some of the claims (i.e. apparently an interview by Ninja from some podcast). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh did not realize there is a subsection on Ninja's page.

maybe we can just redirect to Ninja_(gamer)#Low_Taper_Fade Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(+1) Thegoofhere (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted (tagged) we've gone through this before with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low taper fade. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Taper Fade (disambiguation). —‍Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:G4 per above Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 14 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.

Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology

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

Non-notable journal published by a predatory publisher that has not been discussed in any capacity by independent sources and is not indexed by any selective databases. There was some previous discussion regarding the journal (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Archive_6#Keep_or_delete_this_journal?) but it has since been delisted from MEDLINE (NCBI) and Index Medicus (MIAR) with little fanfare. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Science. -- Recon rabbit 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I debated with myself whether a redirect to Predatory publishing or Beall's list is a reasonable alternative, but I think a K.I.S.S. deletion is simplest. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could only see redirecting being appropriate if American Scientific Publishers was a blue link. List of MDPI academic journals exists after all. -- Recon rabbit 15:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the independent sources (about its predatory nature/delisting) provide the significant depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG notability. WP:ITSUSEFUL to have a page warning us that this is not a high-quality journal but that's not an adequate reason for a keep, and there is no likely redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coralogix

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

lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia’s general notability guideline. Most references are either press releases, primary sources, or non-independent tech blogs, which may not adequately demonstrate the company’s significant coverage in reputable secondary sources. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student World Impact Film Festival

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

I have strong belief that this subject does not meet the notability criteria mentioned in WP:GNG or WP:NGO. This article relies excessively on the use of primary sources, and when searched up, I can only see some reliable/secondary sources, and even then they are not independent of the subject (e.g interviews with the founder). WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, and New Jersey. WormEater13 (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Jat Day

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

non-notable, WP:BEFORE returned 0 results for "International Jat Day" or "World Jat Day" from a scholar, books, or google cse search. a search for reporting returns a few articles all of which only had minimal coverage or rs issues. doesnt meet WP:SIGCOV, or WP:DEPTH if viewed as an event. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~merge~~ redirect to Jats. Most of the article seems to duplicate Jats rather than talk about the day itself. Doesn’t seem notable enough for a standalone article.

Most egregious example of this: Half of the article is about “Historical Jat kingdoms” which is entirely unrelated to International Jat Day. This is where most of the book sources, and nearly half of all sources in the article come from.

Edit: Given how the majority of the article is likely AI-generated, and there is little unique info in the article that is reliable or not already covered by Jats, I have decided against merging.

ApexParagon (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator Agent 007 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the page creator is blocked for this, I can confirm through the use of GPTZero that the text in the current version of the article is mostly AI-generated. I cannot verify the validity of the sources. Jalen Barks (Woof) 19:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
added {{AI-generated}} to the page ApexParagon (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: There are no secondary sources which discuss about this event in depth also the author of this page was blocked for violation. Most of the content of this page is about jat kingdoms TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Long Burn the Fire

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No sources beyond profiles from databases and stores. The Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies review cited in the article only briefly mentions it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to have had some influence [31], and several mentions in Gbooks above. Also pops up in Spin magazine from 2011 in the link above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a few mentions in books are enough to keep this article. To not fail WP:GNG, this article needs significant coverage. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see anything wrong with that. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Folks from Mother's Mixer

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No sources found except profiles from music stores and databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information Security Forum

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of significant coverage. While the article technically 'survived' AfD previously, that was only due to User_talk:WikiOriginal-9#AFDs and not because of the perceived notability of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, Technology, and United Kingdom. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of mentions in Gscholar [32] or [33] second one seems to be about the ORG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the author for the second reference works for the ISF, which would make it not independent. Let'srun (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Ughiovhe

(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. While the subject was briefly a member of two MLS teams, he never appeared in a first-division match, and that wouldn't allow for a notability pass by itself anyway. Let'srun (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. Let'srun (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete played a bit, but hasn't done anywhere near enough to be notable. Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 (Ginger album)

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

Non-notable album. Not a single in-depth source was found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbone 101: Nuttasaurusmeg Fossil Fuelin' the Fonkay

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

Album that fails WP:GNG. No in-depth sources found expect profiles and 1 sentence mentions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remind Me in 3 Days...

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

Another non-notable album. No sources beyond profiles from music websites. I was able to find a review about this album from "Pitchfork", but its too short and undetailed to be used as a source. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability requirements, with the article mostly being a mere list of songs on the album. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This in a newspaper [34] bottom column on the left. This in Spin magazine [35]. A few reviews, critical commentary, should be ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The numerous amounts of reviews presented in the article are all SIGCOV and warrant notability. Locust member (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already had lots of reviews. What is the problem? Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Wetlands

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

Non-notable album. No sources beyond profiles from music websites. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources fail to satisfy the requirements of WP:NALBUM, with the article being mostly a listing of the tracks on the album. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that User:WhoIsCentreLeft rapidly nominated six album articles all created by me for deletion, after I critiqued one of their other nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidney Bingos. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CMS-Helmets

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG, there is no WP:SIGCOV. A review for one of their products does not grant notability. Coeusin (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Portugal. Coeusin (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nominator's rationale. The external links fail to demonstrate any notability or significant coverage. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Cohen (soccer)

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

Subject appears to have played one game of professional soccer and article relies on one source. Raskuly (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Raskuly (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV, with the referenced athlete appearing only once in a professional soccer game. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – One source is not enough, even if it actually contains significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Very clear failure of WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shaikh (actor)

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

The sources cover the person in brief and in a passing manner or using his citations primarily. No significant independent and multiple sources per GNG or ANYBIO. Cinder painter (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repost of deleted and salted material: Salman Shaikh/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Shaikh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pppery the nomination you mentioned was about 4 years ago and the subject of the article has from then, received significant roles in television and movies and also has received good amount of coverage from TOI and more sources. The title was salted because apart from this subject there were several more subjects with the same name trying to create articles on this title page. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Coggins

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

Subject played primarily at an amateur level and appears to fail WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Raskuly (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, appears to meet GNG, see e.g. this, this (p2), and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on 2 citations provided by @BeanieFan11.Darkm777 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sony Bravia televisions

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

Lengthy list that doesn't provide notable coverage of any individual models. Fails WP:NOTCATALOG. MidnightMayhem 09:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Products, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. It's not the job of Wikipedia to include every single model number of a particular television producer. Ajf773 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Feinberg

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

WP:BLP1E, all of Feinberg's mentions are related to KIPP and can be hosted there. The accusations against Feinberg didn't result in a criminal conviction and appear to be the main source of articles about him directly, rather than articles where the subject is KIPP & Feinberg is a passing mention. Either way, this is largely unsourced and fails WP:N. 30Four (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I guess the question is whether founding KIPP is sufficient for notability (I don't think founding an organization is an event.) For me, that seems enough (but I can understand others might disagree) -- Taku (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KIPP: Not notable on his own, but would be reasonable to be mentioned at the destination. UtherSRG (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeeka Guruge

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In addition to the concerns about the possible autobiographical edits, 11 of the 16 sources appear to be dead links and bring up a 404 error when trying to access them. Based on the titles, these sources may follow a similar pattern described later. Most of the remaining ones are either plot summaries of a movie that lists the subject in the cast (source 8 for example) or articles discussing a movie and listing the subject as a music director (with no further mention or coverage of the subject), such as in sources 9 and 10. The first links that appear when doing a search of the subject include profiles on Facebook and YouTube, his official site, and a few other similar articles similarly providing a passing mention but not significant coverage of him (such as him performing at an event). ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 07:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-'Ashr al-Awakher

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

No sources. No indication of notability. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. UtherSRG (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What the article is describing is the Night of Power. Whether this is a legitimate name for it is another question. If it is, redirect, but I don't think it is, so delete. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed my mind. How is this different from the subject we already cover? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in its original state, the article contained three references, none of which mentioned Al-'Ashr al-Awakher at all. Since nomination at AfD, the creating editor has added a rough translation from the urwiki article, but I am not sure what to make of the references that are now there - they look like primary sources to me, but my knowledge of Islam is quite poor. In any case, although my WP:BEFORE searches turned up references to the last ten nights of Ramadan and that the Night of Power occurs within that period (so the topic is possibly notable), I could find nothing linking the phrase Al-'Ashr al-Awakher with it at all. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first version of the article was incomplete, I've improved it now, so I think it should keep. Leo^talk 10:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per leo.Veritasphere (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable but sources can be improved. Mainly primary sources at the moment. Needs secondary sourcing. Ramos1990 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more thorough, policy-based input, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to expand on my previous delete recommendation, I could find no WP:SIGCOV of either Al-'Ashr al-Awakher or last ten nights of Ramadan in secondary sources: there are plenty of passing mentions, but only in the context of the Night of Power or I'tikāf, both of which are already the subject of articles. The current article, a rough translation of mentions in primary religious sources, should not be kept. SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems like a promotional article. It says they are the best for worship and good deeds. An editor from Mars (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic doesn't appear to be independently notable. Cortador (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramadan or to Night of Power. Per nom, this article fails WP:GNG, and as such, should not be a standalone entry. All the references appear to be WP:PRIMARY, and I couldn't find any notable sources otherwise.--DesiMoore (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Alinani

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

First of all, I believe this footballer fails WP:SPORTCRIT because he only played 244 minutes in Albania's highest league and spent the rest of his career in lower divisions where attendance can be measured in the hundreds. But does he meet WP:GNG anyway? I believe not, because the two Panorama sources in the article as well as three others I found [36] [37] [38] are either WP:ROUTINE or not long enough to grant notability. In the longest piece, "Nga Ballshi në Sarandë, Alinani rigjen vëllain", over half of the article is a direct quote from Alinani. Geschichte (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure footballer who plays for a small town in Albania. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:SNOW A7 G11. Corporate spam for a non-notable retail operation. Cabayi (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra Hub Indonesia

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

No significant coverage from independent WP:RS. Possible WP:COI as well. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 05:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. ~ BlueTurtles | talk 05:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. An editor from Mars (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete highly likley COI in my opinion, article does not meet WP:GNG criteria. Opolito (talk)
Delete: I can’t find any significant coverage by sources not affiliated with the company, as the sites that appear when I search the company are its website, and most of the other ones appear to be its social media profiles on sites such as Facebook and Instagram. In addition to this, there are some aspects of the article that sound promotional, and Samsung.mhi, who wrote the entire article, has a conflict of interest with the company as evidenced by their username and could possibly be an undisclosed paid editor as well. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 06:03, 14 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.

ZX Touch

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

The sources are two links to the brand's website and two YouTube videos. I couldn't find any other sources through a WP:BEFORE that demonstrate this product's notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As noted, two of the refs link to the company website, and the other two are videos on YouTube which appear to be reviews of the topic. When searching the subject, most of the links that appear are on shopping sites such as eBay and Amazon, and there doesn’t appear to be any real significant coverage of the subject on websites not affiliated with the subject. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 05:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Products, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones. One good reference in Retro Gamer (paywalled [39] or [40]), and one where I'm unsure of reliability: [41], and I think we have enough for a mention. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#6‎. This is currently on the main page. (non-admin closure) Laun chba ller 03:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morgpie

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Most sources are not significant coverage or from non-reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER.

Any independent coverage of her from reliable sources seems to fall under WP:BLP1E. A one-off stunt on Twitch to attempt to circumvent guidelines is not notable.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED; however, just because it is not censored doesn't mean that pornographic persons get a pass on meeting notability because people are too afraid to nominate them out of fear of being called a censor. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Video games. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:46, 14 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.

Pennsylvania Governor's Residence fire

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

This likely fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RECENCY, as most other arson attacks don't have pages. For similar reference, the 2008 arson attack to the Texas Governor's Mansion doesn't have its own page. Red0ctober22 (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT for lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. For now, this is at best a couple lines in the main article for the PA governor's mansion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC) Updated: Keep. Additional coverage since my earlier !vote has made clear there is likely to be an WP:NEVENT pass for this arson attack. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has gotten major coverage and, unlike the Texas fire, directly threatened the Governor's life.

COREmelt (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania Governor's Residence: if and when it becomes individually notable per GNG, a separate page can be created. CorrectionsJackal (correct me) 07:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pennsylvania Governor's Residence as per CorrectionsJackal. Content of the topic appears to be notable, but does not warrant a stand-alone article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as I already did so. Do not create separate duplicative articles just for the sake of it – a split is not necessary for three sentences. Reywas92^Talk 13:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the basis for speedying? Also, since the suspect has been accused with attempted murder, why the insistence on reducing the significance to the Governor's Residence? gidonb (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pennsylvania Governor's Residence: Per CorrectionsJackal. As of now, the contents of this incident could be easily condensed into a section on that article, as has been done already. Raskuly (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the article about the residence. I think this might be more of an issue, but it's TOOSOON at this point. Can create an article on it when it has sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I dont agree with the redirect or the deletion, it should be draftified untill more info comes out Shaneapickle (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Unless a whole lot more info comes out, this doesn't warrant a standalone article. Estreyeria (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was a very serious, dangerous attack with heavy news and media coverage. Scanlan (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per ample coverage and based on similar events, there is no question that this meets the GNG and EVENT and that coverage will be LASTING, as this will go into history books. The only weakness is that the article is rather short. No doubt, however, that it will be expanded. gidonb (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This was the attempted assassination of a major political figure and his family inside their own home. It has garnered significant media coverage already and there is reasonable expectation that further developments in the investigation, public reaction and indictment/trial of the suspect will gain additional and significant media coverage.JoeyLyles (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attacking a prominent Jewish governor's home on Passover is very much a significant event and crime. There is ample coverage about the incident and perspectives on its meaning for the US at this moment in history. Redirecting to an article on the residence also seems bizarre as the the context is more about the family and alleged antisemitism.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty important event with multiple independent new coverage.Masktapeisawesome (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - No source for "attempted assassination", it being a "serious attack", buzzwords. Not significant, house fires / arson happens all the time. WP:TOOSOON also applies. — E_F⁵ 13:17, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please you explain the "no source" part in your opinion? The suspect has been charged with attempted murder, as quoted by the sources. There appears to be tension between the "no source" in your opinion and ample references in the article sources out there. gidonb (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gidonb, I didn't see that, but the latter part of my oppose stands. — E_F⁵ 13:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be that latter part? Not significant, house fires / arson happens all the time also talks down the significance of this event. The suspect has been charged with terrorism and attempted murder. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP:TOOSOON? I don't know what you are trying to get out of me by discounting a delete vote in a discussion that clearly will end as "keep", but WP:BLUDGEONING the single delete vote isn't doing anything good. — E_F⁵ 14:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only had some questions. That's allowed. So the delete stands, the reasoning not so much. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage now and seemingly lasting. Important to remember WP:RUSHDELETE, no harm in letting a page sit for a day or two to see what develops from it. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the coverage has lasted longer than a single news cycle. This was an attempted assassination. I'm willing to change my mind if it does disappear. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to restate what's already been argued above. Cheers! Johnson524 15:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Philippines 2008

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

Appears to fail WP:NEVENT. Single source is a Blogger blog recently listed as bad source at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources. This would have been redirected to a pageant series article, but no such article exists leading me to think the series is probably non-notable as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking MMA

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Might meet G11. Note this article was declined at AfC ~2 hours before this AfD with no changes since then. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Martial arts, and New Zealand. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 02:49, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it speedy delete. How this article made it past draft is beyond me. Nswix (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It did not go through the AfC process. After getting declined it seems the author chose to move to mainspace anyway. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 16:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP. After removing a number of sources that didn't mention the topic at all, we're left with: two books, one from 2005 and the other from 1987, so clearly both long pre-dating this fledgeling sport; two YouTube videos; a press release; and the website of the parent organisation. Not seeing any relevant hit on Scholar or Gbooks; Gnews has a couple of InsideTheGames press-releases other than the one cited in the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note at time of nom the article was about an entity responsible for regulating the sport Striking MMA; the article has since shifted to covering the sport itself. I still stand by my nom rationale - i do not believe the sport nor the org meet WP:GNG. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 16:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite revisions, I can't see any way in which this could ever meet GNG. Nswix (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The creator is also working on Draft:Striking MMA. Nurg (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powtoon

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

Through a web search, it doesn't appear that this is a notable company. I've found some web articles [42][43][44], but with a quick read, I'm concerned about significant coverage (i.e., commentary, analysis, etc.) of the company's services within those sources, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Best, Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. Bridget (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like an advertisement or product description rather than an article, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia's standards. In addition, there are just three references; one by the company's own page, an article in a technologic publication and a product review. These are not enough to consider the company to be notable. Just to be sure, I searched for more inependent sources on the company to possibly add later on, and found almost nothing beyond brief mentions. NeoGaze (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think there's SIGCOV of the company, but I found several sources about the product: [45], [46], [47], [48]. I'm not entirely sure how to resolve that. Anerdw (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Efren Prieto

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

Fails WP:NBIO and none of the sources are acceptable. Sources are a) a Blogspot blog b) Bellezavenezolana.net, listed at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as the work of one person with no editorial oversight (i.e. a self-published source, and c) the subject's own commercial website. WP:BEFORE did not turn up anything better, and the article has been tagged as poorly referenced for over a decade. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability. Poorly sourced. 01:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Beauty pageants, France, England, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated films in the public domain in the United States

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Absolutiva (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of great importance. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no longer any point in keeping this one. desmay (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films in the public domain in the United States. The discussion there impacts this discussion as well. - jc37 09:05, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:44, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important list. An editor from Mars (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I voted Keep on List of films in the public domain in the United States. These lists are invaluable for a base of information checking and completing filmography articles and lists, etc. Especially if we are creating a table of works list for any bio article. They are also helpful in pointing us towards other information we might need when we create an article. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hardly indiscriminate; this is a highly defined list and passes WP:NLIST as the subjects are discussed as a group in Hurst, Rossen, Kehr and other sources in the article. Also passes WP:LISTPURP (and is useful to boot). Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason has been given why INDISCRIMINATE should apply here. It's a list of films that are 1) animated and 2) in the public domain in the United States. That is very specific. Cortador (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced, helps anyone looking to download such films that are now in the public domain. I understand that now things will regularly drop into the public domain, but this would likely be the first place someone would look for a particular film. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 14 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.

Vincent Confait

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

Declined prod. There are 3 non-database/results sources. This one isn't SIGCOV as it's 2 small 1 line mentions. This and this are about his son dying and not SIGCOV about Vincent. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Medalling in Indian Ocean Island Games is not considered a top tier competition for WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of mass AFDing substantially improved articles mere minutes after they're improved? Can't you just focus on worse quality articles instead of obsessing over getting everything improved by a particular user deleted? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was not substantially improved as it is lacking in third party indepth sources. My nomination stands and you won't deter me. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely a substantial improvement. In what way would deleting this improve the encyclopedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still is lacking in indepth third party coverage. I've already commented how the added third party sources are not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way would deleting this improve the encyclopedia? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it's a weak case but the Nation coverage gets close to WP:SIGCOV and I think the ongoing coverage of his career (plus his medals at the Indian Ocean Island Games and appearances at two Olympic games make it very likely that contemporary WP:SIGCOV of his career exists. The fact that he competed in two Olympiads makes it harder to select a redirect as an AtD, and while it is not immediately apparent that he passes WP:NTRACK he appears to have been a dominant athlete in Seychelles during his career. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Per WP:HEY, article has been expanded with WP:SIGCOV from Nation discussing the subject. Let'srun (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per found coverage in the Nation and WP:NBASIC. And its obvious that a two-time Olympian with nearly two dozen national championship wins and many records, who competed in the offline era, would have further coverage in Seychellois archives. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Constantino Kapambwe

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

Declined prod. 2 third party sources added, the rest are databases/results listings. This is a small 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that there are two issues here: a behavioral one as outlined in comment; and a content-based issue. I will try to keep my comments here only about the content but it's difficult because I think both are relevant.

Kapambwe was the top Olympian from his country and was noticed by The Baltimore Sun for running the entire Olympic marathon barefoot. It's all but certain there is more coverage than what I found; looking at Zambian newspapers would be a start, which is important to note because none of their 1960s archives have been checked yet. Yes, there's a systemic bias against African countries that affects the coverage available to us, but that's not the same thing as saying that no coverage exists, or even worse that we shouldn't look at all. --Habst (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zambia at the 1964 Summer Olympics: No evidence of passing WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. The Baltimore Sun "notice" flagged by the "keep" !voter above is a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: However, three of the contestants started out barefoot. Harbanslal Harbanslal of India, Constantino Kapambwe of Northern Rhodesia and Mathias Kanda of Rhodesia. However, redirecting as an AtD will preserve the page history should future sourcing the qualifies this subject for mainspace be found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nobody is saying that "we shouldn't look", we should, in theory, but more importantly, we "must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". According to developments in policy, this must be in place before the article is created, not an infinite number of years after it's created – especially when there is no clear indication of notability such as here. I agree that there are issues regarding behaviour, as well as the D-word, disruptive editing, and I'd like to propose that these athlete prods/afds are placed on hold for a while, as they and the oftentimes nonsensical arguments therein are getting very tiresome. Geschichte (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zambia at the 1964 Summer Olympics as an alternative to deletion – WP:WHYN and WP:SPORTCRIT both respectively state that "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." and that "All sports biographies [...] must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. [...]" The sources provided in the article do not help in establishing notability since they are either a database or don't provide significant coverage of the subject at hand. Searches performed on (but not limited to) Google or Newspapers.com didn't turn up any sources that would help establish notability. Looking at what we currently have, there doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight, the keep argument in this case isn't in conflict with either of those guidelines. If we have reliable indicators that GNG-contributing sources exist, they can be used to fulfill WP:N even if they aren't linked in the article. --Habst (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]