Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 17	March 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Masato Mizuki

AfDs for this article:

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

Tried to propose deletion, was nominated previously - [1] he has played 27 professional games before dropping down into non league. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tambo del Visitador

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

Contested draft. User who created this page is edit warring, and has moved this page to mainspace several times, even though the page is clearly not ready for publishing. Page needs more sources and further improvements. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Spain, and Peru. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deccani–Vijayanagar wars

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

Full of AI-generated content by blocked socks, and previously soft AfD'ed. Since its WP:REFUND, nothing significant has been done to improve this mess so far. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has lots of issues, like lacking reliable citations, peacock terms, and synthesis. If improved with better sources and a neutral tone, it should be kept, but for now, the whole article is a complete mess. NXcrypto Message 02:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD before so Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose But only because, these wars are significant in Indian history and why the Mughals came around, British took over, and modern day India as a state. I think it should be rebuilt from the ground up. DotesConks (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive Pro Wrestling

AfDs for this article:

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

Very limited third party sources to the point of a fail in WP:ORG and WP:GNG as previously mentioned in the previous two AfD's" (see also the talk page of the promotion) 2001:8003:5130:2601:167:D2C7:4D20:837E (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wrestling, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Popplewell

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

I originally tagged this BLP about a journalist as having notability issues in 2023. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and added a reference to the time he spent on an uninhabited island as a teenager, which got some coverage. WP:BLP1E applies, however, as I can't find other independent, reliable sources to demonstrate that he is not a low-profile person. I don't think he meets WP:NJOURNALIST. Tacyarg (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch_Amos_of_Jerusalem

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Patriarch Amos of Jerusalem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Search for Patriarch Amos of Jerusalem

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Search for Amos of Jerusalem

This is a duplicate of Amos of Jerusalem. Even the text is largely the same. Wikibelgiaan (talk) 22:23, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Amos of Jerusalem. It would be a helpful redirect. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Palestine. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is technically the older article of the two, Amos of Jerusalem is slightly newer. Both created by the same person. I would lean towards keeping this one's article history, but moving it to the other's title. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the older of the two mostly identical articles, but move this article to Amos of Jerusalem after closing per Darth Starbro. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Valentini

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

Declined prod. Only source added was imdb.com which is not considered an indepth reliable source. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Europe. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1988 Summer Olympics – Mixed trap, subject isn't notable enough for own article- no sigcov. Jordano^5³ 23:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle 987

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

Non-notable racecar that ran in one race series. No secondary sourcing in the article, nor could I find any online from a basic search. Initially tagged this for single source and not meeting GNG, and an editor responded by adding two database entries that don't say a word about the car. The article calls it "entirely unsuccessful" though the sole source that says anything about the car (from its manufacturer, so both primary and non-independent) doesn't even support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, if you look at the sources i added, they are for the results, and 12th wasn't in the points for the series, so as I stated, it was unsuccessful, regardless of what Eagle had to say about the matter. Vantage-TWR (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ Public Health

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

Article deleted after expired PROD back n November. No real change since, so PROD reason still stands: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Medicine. Randykitty (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a bad journal, but it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. For now, deletion is appropriate, but putting it in draft space would also be fine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is indexed in PubMed, is it not a good selective database? Regarding the notability criteria, is it not important in its field? Judkessler (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Pubmed is a good database, but it's not selective. The requirements are basically be somehow related to the medical field and not much else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nom and Headbomb. Nobody (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zev Golan

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

not enough sources, may not meet notability guidelines - only one source references actual biography and doesn't mention any involvement with Simon Wiesenthal, Valerian Trifa or Boleslav Maikovskis. Alexthegod5 (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi Alexthegod5, can you point out which source you are referring to? The references do not support notability yet are you referring to a source out there by BEFORE and NEXIST? Also, if Golan is a well-established Israeli author, a pass of NAUTHOR would be likely. Instead of nominating for deletion, did you consider adding warning templates? gidonb (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts

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

In this discussion, a consensus was found that, outside of very special circumstances, individual articles on album reissues probably don't make that much sense, even taking into account notability. However, as I mentioned, there are some special circumstances that were highlighted in the discussion; an example of this was OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017, where the material about the reissue is so abundant and in-depth that trying to properly summarize it on the original OK Computer article would've been next to impossible.

Unfortunately, The Black Parade/Living With Ghosts, the 10th anniversary reissue of The Black Parade, is not one of those album reissues to where I feel that a split is justified. All that happened with this reissue can be easily summarized by it's paragraph that is already present in Release and promotion section of the Black Parade article. Maybe a sentence or two could be added to summarize what kinds of demos and songs were completely cut yet are present here on "Living with Ghosts" (e.g. give a mention to songs like "Emily" and whatnot) but beyond that there's not much that gives this article much of a strong reason to exist, per WP:MERGEREASON. Furthermore, the anniversary reissues for several albums like The Black Parade, such as American Idiot, summarize its reissue in the main article rather than through a spinout, even if it has 4x the listening material to the original work.

But let's say that MERGEREASON and the linked discussion weren't enough, how does the reissue hold up to WP:NALBUM? There are a few things generally looked for by this policy: whether the album charted or received any certifications, if it is covered by several reliable, secondary sources in non-trivial/announcement fashion (i.e. meeting the general notability guidelines), or if it won any awards. However, none of these on their own would automatically make an album or musical work in general notable. The reissue charted in only four regions, and for a very short period of time, with no certifications. Only two reviews of the album were published: this fairly in depth one by AllMusic, and then this one by Rock Sound. Unfortunately, Rock Sound's review barely constitutes as a "review", and is just a few sentences long. No critical commentary is present here. And obviously, as an album reissue for a band that quite literally did not exist at the time it was published, it did not receive any awards. There is this article by the Alternative Press that could be fairly useful, but it's not necessarily a review and I would more or less rather use it as a source for production info behind The Black Parade, because obviously, the songs that were strapped during its production are relevant to that article.

With all of that being said, I firmly believe that this article does not stand its ground on its own and should probably be redirected to The Black Parade. And since this article's material has theoretically already been merged into the main album article, that is why I have chosen AFD as the venue for this discussion and not set up a merge proposal on the album talk pages. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I contributed to the Music Project discussion that was referenced at the beginning of this nomination, and I don't think a consensus was reached on how to handle the nascent craze for reissues of old albums that are poofed up to look like totally new items (or not). Instead we determined the need for some sort of new WP policy on the matter and I'm not sure if much happened after that. That is relevant here because this MCR reissue could be easily merged back to the original album under older definitions of "reissue", though it did make the charts under its own precise title in 2016, so maybe it doesn't fit that old definition. The ensuing discussion here is likely to include a lot of uncertainty. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way that I thought the discussion ended was in a decent enough consensus that album reissues may not exactly need their own articles, new or old, even if notable. Either way, I believe I've made my case that the material here should likely just be merged into a paragraph or two in the main Black Parade article. Especially since it likely does not meet WP:GNG on its own due to the lack of critic reviews. If the discussion goes against that though, then I suppose it is what it is. λ NegativeMP1 18:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the album passes WP:NALBUM. There isn't a requirement of how many national charts an album needs to appear on, but being in the top 15 in the UK, Australia, and Scotland national charts seems notable. Additionally, while there are only a handful of reviews of the album, there are also several articles where the album's promotion is the subject due to its obscure promotion as MCRX, and the mass reaction in the rock music scene and notable rock musicians due to the speculation of a band reunion. While I may be biased as the article's creator, I believe the content is significant and notable per multiple criteria in NALBUM. Sekyaw (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 21:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sami Beyroun

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

Per historian Paul Tchir, we only really know his Olympic results in 1964. As such, there is not enough notability or significant coverage of him to warrant an article. Heck, we don't even know his name for certain. Jordano^5³ 20:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon, Olympics, and Sportspeople. Jordano^5³ 20:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Al-Johani

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

Deleted before. Nowhere near notable, only played 90 minutes in the Saudi league. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live in Northampton, MA

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

Non-notable album without significant coverage, previously draftified, also extensively BLARed at the redirect with history now located at Special:History/Live In Northampton, MA, so we might as well get a final decision on this. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found only one critic's review, from AllMusic. Does not meet WP:NALBUM. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KTWC-LD

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

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

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

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

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

Non-notable LPTV owned by a spectrum speculator. No sources; some promotional content. Merge to List of television stations in Texas#LPTV stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Texas#LPTV stations per nom; as they stated, their owner Edge Spectrum is just a nuisance toller keeping TV station licenses but doing absolutely nothing with them but putting in repeated tolling requests, at least twice per year, because of 'economic conditions' and 'equipment/installation issues'; eventually the FCC will have enough and finally delete these stations, but for now, these have to go somewhere. Nathannah • 📮 21:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Cramer

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

Proposing deletion per WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Cramer played an important role in a scandal about the book Arming America and is an adjunct professor at College of Western Idaho.^[1] I have found no evidence that he meets an NACADEMIC criterion and insufficient coverage for BASIC.

Of the current references, ^[2]^[3]^[4] are by Cramer; ^[5]^[6] are not about Cramer; ^[7] is run-of-the-mill primary election results. I found additional references^[8]^[9]^[10] that mention Cramer in passing, apropos his role in the Arming America scandal. Even if this coverage was more extensive, it would fail Wikipedia:BLP1E.

References

^ "Clayton Cramer | CWI Directory". College of Western Idaho. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-18.
^ "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network, George Mason University. January 6, 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ Cramer, Clayton (March 2012). "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder" (PDF). Engage. 13 (1). Federalist Society: 37–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2012.
^ My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012. ISBN 978-1477667538.
^ "Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty". Emory University. October 25, 2002. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
^ "The Bancroft and Bellesiles". History News Network, George Mason University. December 13, 2002. Retrieved February 26, 2009.
^ "2008 Primary Election Results Legislative Totals". Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2009.
^ Lindgren, James; Bellesiles, Michael A. (2002). "Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal". Yale Law Journal. 111 (8). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 2195. doi:10.2307/797645. JSTOR 797645. SSRN 692421.
^ Wilson, J (Jan 2002). "The Scandal of Arming America. (Stranger in a Strange Land)". Books & Culture. 8 (1): 4–6.
^ Hoffer, Peter Charles (2007). Past imperfect: facts, fictions, fraud, American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin. History. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-445-3.

userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Firearms. userdude 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There might be notability with the correction around the book, but these are sourced only to educational websites. Rest seems non-notable and I can't pull up coverage on this individual we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources you can find are interviews with a few universities, that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Disco

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

Lacks WP:GNG. Only two short independent sources, unable to find any additional sources after a search. Possible vanity page; most of the sources are links to the artist's work on Apple Music. Several edits made by User:MarkDelange of the same name as the artist himself. Metalhead210 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Metalhead210 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total dearth of WP:SIGCOV, and despite the emphasis given to chart stats, this is still a BLP so in major breach of WP:BLPSOURCES (relying as it does on primary sources, in breach of WP:PTS). Blows WP:ANYBIO out the water. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. A search for "Dirty Disco" -wikipedia -costa on Google News gave me one secondary source from the Houston Chronicle. Plain Google search just gave me the artist's Soundcloud/Spotify/etc pages. The article hints at notability, but I just don't see any RS supporting that. Anerdw (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Houston Chronicle article mentioned above. Otherwise, there don't appear to be any further sources. A Gnewspaper search brings up mentions of the phrase from the 1980s, unrelated to this person. Article now is mostly sourced to Apple Music, not a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hyman (TV personality)

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Hyman * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Television, Law, Politics, California, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla house

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

Does not appear to be an official prototype (vs Cybercab) or proposed product other than appearance at a couple random shows. Not significant coverage to support notability on its own. Could just be mention in Tesla Energy. ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Smoot

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

Fails WP:NBIO, including all three prongs for WP:ANYBIO. Contains only one independent, verifiable source by Ryland (1955), who only mentions him for half a paragraph. Google only gave results for different persons under this name, as did JSTOR. I was able to find one other source from the local government, which cites Ryland. PROD was removed by an editor, who suggested bringing to AfD. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stagecoach Hotel & Casino

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

Rural Nevada casino that lacks WP:SIGCOV. The only sources I could find about this place were travel guides. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Nevada. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Waterworth

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a speedy deletion request on this—voicing the titular character in a major TV series is obviously a credible claim of significance—but sourcing this meagre is clearly not appropriate in a BLP. ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. ‑ Iridescent 17:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She is apparently a BAFTA-nominated individual and has written a book [2]. That source doesn't help notability, but at least confirms these facts. The BAFTA nomination would suggest notability, but I don't have enough coverage found to !vote at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Duncan Davidson

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

WP:ANYBIO He's been at various places. So, there's no singular appropriate re-direct target, yet he lacks WP:GNG to warrant existence as a stand alone article. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Photography, Technology, and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent sourcing The nominator didn't indicate whether they did any source searching. I did some and the best I found was this blog. It seems like the thing he's most known for is writing some stuff for Java, so those are possible redirect targets, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, standard WP:BEFORE was done and I didn't find he's been written about adequately to meet ANYBIO. All the results are from TED related sites and his relevance is generally limited to a photo credit tag "TED/James Duncan Davidson" where his name does appear in reliable corporate media sources. Graywalls (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shastra Nethralaya

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

Fails WP:NORG. In a WP:BEFORE search, a lack of WP:SIGCOV was clear, and most of the references in the article itself refer to a specific education principal as opposed to demonstrating coverage or notability of the organization itself. Honestly comes across as somewhat promotional. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Hinduism. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hey man im josh I understand your concern but this organisation does not sell anything, all teachings are free of charge on the website and on youtube. The citations are not many, only some through wikipedia. I tried to add these but were removed. Please advise what can I change. YamunaIRE (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WXWZ-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV. Mostly unsourced; some promotional content. Merge into List of television stations in Puerto Rico#LPTV stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlacVolta

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

not notable digital company; the sources are either paid or not with reliable coverage of the subject (based on interviews or press-releases) Unicorbia (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another frivolous deletion nomination orchestrated by (Personal attack removed).Postit note warrior (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia already has enough low-quality African-subject stubsPostit note warrior (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WVDO-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV with lots of translators; no sources; outdated info. Merge into List of television stations in Puerto Rico#LPTV stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WKOZ

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

Two sources cited about this radio station are just short profiles that does not prove notability. This article needs to be deleted. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needed attention, like a lot of small-town radio stubs. And this one has something to hang its hat on, unlike some: its founder, Cy Bahakel, went on to a career in broadcast management and other fields, even mentioning WKOZ specifically in interviews about his start in business. So I expanded it. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following Sammi Brie's expansion. The new sources are notable and demonstrate sigcov, and the new article does a much better job in telling this station's story. Jordano^5³ 18:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: thx Sammi charlotte ^👸♥ 18:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Tenpop421 (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sohan Lal Commodity Management

AfDs for this article:

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

I was not successful in finding reliable sources, only 1-2 short mentions or releases about financing, purchasing, etc. It fails NCORP Unicorbia (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per previous discussion. Sorry for that, my mistake. --Unicorbia (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Management, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:A7 & WP:G11. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorva Corporate Venture LLP

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

Gauravs 51 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:A7. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delta Air Lines Flight 89

AfDs for this article:

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

Not very notable, seeing as the only notability about this article is the fact that the fuel was dumped on a school Fadedreality556 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that this passes WP:NEVENT. It has received significant coverage, both national and international. PhoenixCaelestis • Talk • Contributions 17:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was a !keep in 2020, then again in January 2025. I don't see what has changed in the two months since the last keep. No new sources have been found to show this is now no longer notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing has changed since January 2025, when this was last voted on at AfD. I have nothing further to add, it looks fine, as it did then. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All coverage is routine news coverage. The previous AfD erroneously considered lack of casualties as the argument against notability, while the 2020 AfD failed to differentiate between routine news coverage and sustained secondary coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 01:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge to List of Delta Air Lines accidents and incidents as a valid ATD. I concur with TBUA about the current coverage being fairly routine. In the five years since, and given the headlines, it genuinely surprises me that I cannot find any WP:LASTING or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Maybe that will change when the FAA report comes out, but the most recent article I found about this was in early Feburary 2020, barely a few weeks after the accident. [3] There's been no follow up coverage, either in news or journals or reports, that I can find - not even pieces about the lawsuit. The possibility of a lawsuit and the idea that coverage was bound to continue was a major point in the first AfD - many people guessed, quite correctly, that a lawsuit would materialize. However, it clearly didn't generate much in the way of attention, and, five years on, is unlikely to at this point. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 02:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found two very routine pieces on the lawsuit being filed and being dismissed,[4][5] both from the same regional newswire service that focusses on court reporting. Not really enough to meet NEVENT in my eyes. Also found a piece in Bloomberg law that's better, but still not enough.[6], and hence why I'm sticking with the ATD. Right now this could be summed up in a paragraph in the list, but spun back out should any lasting impacts be shown. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 05:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Riaz Wattoo

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

She does not meet WP:GNG, as most references covering her only mention her in relation to her sister Bushra Bibi, who is the wife of former prime minister Imran Khan. Apart from that, she lacks significant coverage to warrant notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, she is related to the first lady and the ex PM and was instrumental in establishing their relationship.

I would also justify her addition on the following grounds:

She was the head of Pakistan's largest political parties chapter in the UAE for almost a decade and represented the voices of almost 500k expats. She was instrumental in securing the majority of funding for PTI's early political activities.

She was the official representative for the UAE, a major Islamic county, to the OIC, the largest Muslim governing body in the world.

She's also a leading specialist in education policy and sits on the Times Higher Education board of advisors, which is the world's largest education policy institution.

She is also active in Pakistani politics and is commonly seen on most news channels and podcasts, and as such is well known by the Pakistani diaspora.

I would try to approach this from the lense of the Pakistani and Islamic community. She is of course unknown out of these domains but fairly well known within. Shahroze (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We use a global lens, her ethnicity has no bearing on notability here. We require extensive sourcing about the individual that show they are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was not referring to her ethnicity, rather that she is a notable figure in certain demographic. As per Wikipedia Policy ("overzealous deletion"), I believe deleting this page of a notable figure to a certain demographic will violate the policy. Shahroze (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as per official Wikipedia policy - Overzealous deletion:

Section 2: **Articles you are not interested in** – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. Shahroze (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there are zero citations for her work as an academic, so not notable there. I can only find articles about her relationships and food she gave to people, nothing that helps notability. She could perhaps get a mention in the protests mentioned in the Guardian article now used for sourcing, but she doesn't seem to be notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawood Pervez (entrepreneur)

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

A son of a notable businessman, but the notability is not inherited. The current media coverage is not helping with GNG Unicorbia (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, The Grocer is also not a reliable source. See the section titled "Concerns about use of promotional sources" in this talk page archive. PhoenixCaelestis • Talk • Contributions 15:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination is utterly frivolous. The page had only been live for five minutes when Unicorbia nominated it and it's one of a series of similar frovolous deletion nominations with no WP:BEFORE or WP:AFD done prior to the nomination.Postit note warrior (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zdravko Mićević

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

The subject won the Australian light heavyweight boxing title, but this doesn't seem to be enough for notability per WP:NBOXING. If so, this would be a WP:BLP1E that should be redirected to David Hookes. Astaire (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Serbia, and Australia. Astaire (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is an Australian junior welterweight amateur champion and won his debut fight. But he doesn't meet WP:NBOXING. Also Wikipedia discourages notability solely from involvement in a crime or legal case WP:BLPCRIME. RolandSimon (talk) 09:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Previous user already mentioned everything. Боки 💬 📝 21:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hookes or keep. Oppose deletion. Haven’t done a deep dive so still consider a merge there is an entire book that is itself notable about him and Hookes - One Split Second: The death of David Hookes and the trial of Zdravko Micevic. That’s not nothing, and I haven’t looked for anything else. Merging into the bio of someone else when we don't have an article on the event seems odd. NBOXING is precluded by GNG and BLPCRIME is not a notability guideline and further I'm not even sure if there is an issue here - the case is high profile enough and he sought out interviews which for our purposes makes him public. It isn't disputed that he hit him, it's disputed whether that constituted a crime. We simply should not say it was a crime on his part. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [7] [8] after a quick search PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the book and two articles noted by PARAKANYAA, plus the article from The Age which is currently an external link, he certainly meets WP:GNG. There is also coverage of his boxing in 2007 [9], [10], which can be added to the article, and a chapter about him in this book [11]. These sources have more biographical detail (eg the school he attended, that he later worked as a concreter), which can also be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Unicorbia (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The subject of this article does not meet WP:BOXING, so I agree that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. There's WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, so I oppose deletion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and is below the bar for WP:BLPCRIME. As regards the latter, would the Hookes family be happy to have this person's article merged into David Hookes? Spartathenian (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable sporting career and the crime section is unclear if he was found guilty of assault, but the civil charges were withdrawn. I'm not seeing notability. The person has had a rough go perhaps over the last 20 yrs, but that's not quite enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9th Wonder of the World

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

Found no reliable sources for this album. Witchdoctor (rapper) is a redirect to Dungeon Family which does not mention this album at all and doesn't seem like a good redirect target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Georgia (U.S. state). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, empty redirect to Wonders of the World Completely non-notable album, but a very proper WP:ATD. Nathannah • 📮 18:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Unicorbia (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After having a look at search results for "9th Wonder of the World"/"Ninth Wonder of the World", I think it might be better to convert this to a dab or set index page than a redirect. There are enough mentions that it would at least justify a hatnote on Wonders of the World, but at that point it may as well be its own page just to keep clutter down in that article. @Nathannah thoughts? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khedivial Agricultural Society

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

should be deleted if it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve expanded the article and added six sources. There are plenty more. Mccapra (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ChildVoice

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published or promotional sources and does not demonstrate a lasting impact, it would not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability and neutrality standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Uganda, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:NORG. No significant coverage in independent sources. Jfire (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Darcl Logistics

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

lacks sufficient coverage from independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the article primarily relies on self-published sources or promotional content, it would violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability standards. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Nagarkar

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

I do not think he is notable on the grounds of WP:GNG or of WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Grobes Geraet (talk) 08:37, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reviewing the new sources added by RebeccaGreen, changing vote as its very clear from evidence that the subject is notable as an actor and also as an author, whose book was made into a film. RangersRus (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. No sources on the page on the biography and career of the subject and whether any of subject's roles were lead roles in any notable films to be considered a notable actor. A search online does not show any results on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:NACTOR. Madeleine (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This artist has worked in several films, including "Harya Narya Zindabad," "Bayanon Navre Sambhala," "Lakshmi," "Ek Daav Bhutacha," and "Ramnagri." In addition to their acting career, they have also authored a book. Currently, information about this artist is available from two sources: the Sakal [12] and Mahanagar (newspaper) [13], as well as one source from Google Books.[14]AShiv1212 (talk) 6:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

No significant coverage if any of the films he worked in were notable and if any of the roles he played were lead and significant. Authored a book is fine but no coverage on the book and if it was a subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. RangersRus (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you all. I am not in favor of keeping this page. During the 1970s and 1980s, Marathi films did not receive coverage in English newspapers. These are local Marathi film artists. AShiv1212 (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note The ID of the person bringing this page to AfD was created 24 hours ago and has not yet gained experience on Wikipedia. This person appears to be an old, experienced user on Wikipedia. Someone should take this person to SPI.

AShiv1212 (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its a muppet. In enwiki you can meet as Alon9393, but in eswiki was Mmoreno25. Acting like a troll he wrote on my page in this link Pichu VI (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:NACTOR. He starred or had significant roles in two films which have English Wikipedia articles, Ek Daav Bhutacha and Sarvasakshi. He also starred in a 1982 film Ramnagari, listed on List of Hindi films of 1982, which was based on his autobiography. The Marathi Wikipedia article on him names other films and folk plays, which there may be coverage of in Hindi language or Marathi language sources. Per WP:NONENG, if such sources exist, they can be cited here - not having coverage in English does not mean that a person, film, etc is not notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage on the career of the subject nor any coverage in any reliable sources that can prove if any of the roles the subject played were notable. Just having a role in a film does not mean that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. You also use words like "may" and "if", sounding doubtful. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: page on a old actor, apparently active only in India and Marathi language so doesn't qualify per the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the English WP. 190.33.37.207 (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for anyone to be active in the English language, nor, per WP:GNG to have sources in English, to establish notability. If this actor had significant roles in notable Marathi language films, and there is reliable evidence of that, he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why an old actor would not be notable; any language is fine, we take a global view of things. Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are in fact sources in English about him, and I have started adding them to the article. I will add more - the sources make it clear that he was notable: "Ram Nagarkar is a phenomenon in Marathi literature . He has a large following on the stage" (Imprint, 1982); "Ram Nagarkar has managed it all with such poise and ease . Ram Nagarkar , Nilu Phule , and Dada Kondke are old friends ... The public adores this trio" in Quarterly Journal, 1976; "K ANTILAL RATHOD'S latest ' Ram Nagari ' , based on Ram Nagarkar's award-winning Marathi autobiographical novel of the same name", Film World, 1978; etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV), a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article. All sources used herein are not secondary and do not comply with Wikipedia rules WP:ORGTRIV WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. 190.33.38.230 (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is an article called 'Marathi Literature: A Critical Survey', in the journal Indian Literature, not a reliable, independent secondary source? Or the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Marathi Literature? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it concerning that the nom has been blocked indefinitely, and two contributors are IP addresses with only 2 edits each. I have added more sources and information to the article (for example, his autobiography has been taught as a text at the University of Delhi). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is something of a tangled web. It's due for relisting, and I think that might be the best step forward at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources that have been added to the article are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Adam Preaching Society

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

Questionable notability, and WP:PROMO problems run too deep that it is probably better to start over from scratch. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the article has a number of reliable sources references that need detailed evaluation before delete is justified, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 10 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!} 13:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas, Indiana

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

There may indeed have been a short-lived post office ehre, but the topos and GMaps make it quite clear that everything here was and is part of the church property. Indeed, a bunch of the topos don't show the church at all, and label the school; the GNIS entry comes from a highway map. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have just come from Purcell, Indiana (AfD discussion) you will know what is going on here. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources found and added to the article by Uncle G are enough to support a brief separate article. Alternately, Redirect to Johnson Township, Knox County, Indiana and incorporate the sources there, but I doubt that is strictly necessary. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 9 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!} 13:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Davao City local elections

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

Contested draftification, tagged for notability by MPGuy2824. Does not seem to have any third party coverage, failing WP:NEVENT ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The leading candidate for city mayor is in jail at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. It's very apparent WP:BEFORE was never done. Withdraw this nomination to stop wasting other people's time or strongest keep possible. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also won't object to deleting this article then starting from scratch. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Air

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

Article has been languishing for years with concerns about promotional content and sourcing. I can't see any strong evidence of notability, apart from announcements in specialist airline publications. As such, Million Air fails WP:NCORP notability criteria and it's probably time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did a search for news or info on it and the most notable thing I could find was a mention in a SimpleFlying listicle. nf utvol (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mahler

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

I do think this article passes WP:N. Most of the sources that mention him are about Moon Studios, the studio he co-founded, or the development process of the Ori games, but they are not necessarily about him. OceanHok (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. OceanHok (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, OceanHok. I appreciate the scrutiny regarding WP:N. I believe Thomas Mahler meets the General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that focus on him as an individual, not just Moon Studios or the Ori games. For example, the GamesIndustry.biz article "The making of Ori and the Blind Forest" (2015-03-23) provides detailed insight into Mahler’s personal background, his time at Blizzard, and his creative vision, beyond just the studio’s work. Similarly, the GamesRadar+ interview "Ori and the Will of the Wisps interview: Thomas Mahler on difficulty, storytelling, and more" (2020-03-10) centers on his design philosophy and leadership approach, highlighting his individual contributions. These sources, among others like the PC Gamer coverage of his role in No Rest for the Wicked’s development, offer substantial, non-trivial coverage of Mahler himself in secondary sources, independent of Moon Studios. While much of his recognition ties to the studio he co-founded, this is typical for creative directors, and the depth of personal focus in these articles supports his notability under WP:GNG. I’d welcome further discussion or suggestions to strengthen this! 84.242.10.82 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy House Project

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

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, failing Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Additionally, if the content relies on self-published sources, appears promotional, or does not demonstrate a lasting impact Welcome to Pandora (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Utah. – The Grid (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree entirely with nom. Few independent secondary sources, and the article itself reads like a WP:PROMOTION. GuardianH 20:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom - unsourced, not able to find any secondary sources - google books/news articles etc. Asteramellus (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SiGMA Group

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

This is a promotional article about a non-notable affiliate marketing company. Most of the references are press releases from the company. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I live in Canada so my search results are skewed towards Canadian companies, but there are at least three other Sigma Groups in just Canada, and like this article's topic, none of them have reliable, in-depth coverage. I.e. this company might not even be the primary topic, as all the companies are equally unnoteworthy. Yue🌙 20:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a run-of-the-mill gaming/gambling trade thing, Delete. IgelRM (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Definitely one of the companies of all time with minimal notability. This company is definitely not a sigma. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like the biggest or one of the top companies in its field. Though it currently has pretty pr-ish and superficial sources, but I found some good coverage in Malta news, and paywalled one on the German FAZ. Also, Maltabusinessweekly and Malta Today presented already in the article cover the subject in detail. Surprisingly, a random event I found during a search, organized by this company, attracted 25,000 visitors. The page should be reduced and cleanedup for neutrality.--Loewstisch (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I initially considered deletion, but later realized that better sources exist, and the group page focuses more on its significant international events rather than just the company itself. In general, the sources discuss events extensively and their impact, for example, on Malta's economy, as the subject is a major event organizer in several countries, including Brazil. There is substantial coverage in Portuguese about Sigma and its local subsidiary and with descriptions of local events organized by it. I think the page should be re-focused to include these events and their impact. --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All available coverage is press releases or entirely based on company announcements, failing independence. Keep !voters should list specific sources so they can be evaluated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dorf (entrepreneur)

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

This is a procedural nomination completed incorrectly by Qinifer (talk · contribs), which reads:

This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Furthermore, this article has a long history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing, and conflict-of-interest violations, as documented on its Talk page. Multiple editors have repeatedly flagged its self-promotional tone, and past revisions contained material copied from the subject’s website. Given the pattern of promotional activity across multiple related articles (including Knitting Factory and City Winery), this article appears to exist to promote an individual and his business interests rather than provide an objective, verifiable encyclopedic entry. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm hesitant to !vote because the subject is friends with a high school friend of mind. I will note that the subject's son apparently used two different accounts to edit his father's article. I'm not sure if that's technically a violation of WP:SOCK or not. Bearian (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Beyond failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG, there is a long-documented history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid contributions, and conflict-of-interest violations that severely undermine its credibility as a neutral, encyclopedic entry. The talk page documents multiple instances of single-purpose accounts editing this article exclusively to promote Michael Dorf and his business ventures, to the extent that the article contains primarily PR content copied verbatim from Dorf's personal and business websites. The aforementioned accounts include editors flagged for conflict of interest, such as Eli the Great, ZacharyDorf, (two accounts proven to be his children) and Citywinery155 (an employee account). These accounts engaged in promotional edits, and in the case of ZacharyDorf, continued making undisclosed COI edits despite repeated warnings. An editor in this AfD discussion has also noted that Dorf’s son used multiple accounts to edit the article, with those edits consisting of copying and pasting PR content from Dorf’s business websites. I agree with the editor who pointed this item out: this constitutes a clear violation of Wikipedia’s sockpuppetry policy (WP:SOCK). Furthermore, WP:AUTOBIO states that subjects of biographies, their families, and their close associates should not edit their own pages due to inherent COI.

This article also fails WP:NOTINHERITED, as Dorf’s limited coverage largely stems from his association with Knitting Factory and City Winery, rather than any independent accomplishments. Even if his businesses had received significant coverage, that would not automatically confer notability upon him, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Additionally, per WP:BLP and WP:V, biographies of living persons must be supported by high-quality independent sources, and this article has a long history of failing to meet that standard. Many prior revisions contained self-promotional content, with some passages directly copied from Dorf’s website, reinforcing the lack of neutral, independently verifiable information. The media coverage surrounding Dorf is largely event-driven, tied to business ventures and short-lived paid PR-driven press coverage, rather than sustained, in-depth coverage that establishes lasting notability. WP:RUNNING and WP:NOTNEWS clarify that notability requires more than scattered mentions or business promotions.

Given the pattern of documented paid promotional activity across multiple related articles, which include Knitting Factory and City Winery, both of which have ongoing deletion or merge discussions, this article appears to exist to promote an individual and his business interests rather than provide an objective, verifiable encyclopedic entry. Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG, it does not meet inclusion criteria. Furthermore, given the extensive history of promotional editing, undisclosed COI violations, and failure to demonstrate lasting notability in independent sources, this article and its related pages do not serve as neutral biographical entries, but rather as a promotional effort linked to Dorf’s business ventures. Wikipedia is not a business directory (WP:NOTADIRECTORY) nor a platform for self-promotion (WP:PROMO). Per WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI, deletion is the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anodot

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

not notable, promotional article Welcome to Pandora (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantaazma

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

A questionably notable organisation that's written with more puffery than a large bowl of Sugar Puffs, created by a user who decided to bypass the AfC process when it was declined as a draft. There are a couple of decent sources in there, such as a Rolling Stone piece, but crucially, they appear to all be trivial passing mentions, with no actual substance talking about this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The deletion nomination inaccurately characterizes the article's sources as trivial or passing mentions. In reality, the article cites substantial coverage from independent, reliable, and well-established outlets, including Rolling Stone and Bass Magazine, which provide detailed discussions of Fantaazma’s musical contributions, artistic identity, and innovative performance style, extending significantly beyond mere name-dropping or passing references.

Case in point, additionally, specialized German publications have independently analyzed her music and aesthetics, demonstrating clear recognition and notability within contemporary artistic and cultural discourse. Fantaazma's distinctiveness is explicitly acknowledged by credible sources, including Rolling Stone and Bass Magazine, establishing her notability within contemporary artistic and cultural discourse.

Regarding the claim of "puffery," the tone and content of the article are factual and appropriately neutral, objectively summarizing Fantaazma’s work and critical reception without exaggerated promotional language. If minor stylistic adjustments are necessary, these can be addressed easily through standard editorial improvements rather than deletion.

I acknowledge and take responsibility for any unintentional bypassing the AfC review process due to possible misunderstandings about procedural requirements and a prolonged lack of timely feedback despite multiple requests. However, this possible procedural oversight does not negate the article's clear notability, which is established by the high-quality, independent sources already cited.

Unnecessary WP:ASPERSION

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Furthermore, this deletion nomination appears to be retaliatory, as it was initiated immediately after I nominated three interconnected demonstrably promotional and conflict-of-interest-ridden articles, Michael Dorf, Knitting Factory, and City Winery. The user who flagged Fantaazma for deletion had a hand in their creation. The three articles have been repeatedly flagged for violations of clearly being vehicles designed exclusively to promote the business interests of a man named Michael Dorf. The three articles are even flagged as proven COI by his relatives and employees. The aforementioned three articles have extensive, documented histories of guideline violations, including content directly copied from the subject's personal and business websites, undisclosed paid edits by confirmed relatives and employees of Dorf, and repeated reversions of corrections made by neutral editors. The timing and context of this nomination strongly suggest that the motivation behind flagging the Fantaazma article is not based on legitimate concerns about notability or tone but rather as a reaction to my nomination of the Michael Dorf-related articles.

In contrast, the Fantaazma article includes substantial, credible sourcing from notable publications such as Rolling Stone, Bass Magazine, and independent German media, clearly meeting Wikipedia's standards for notability. These sources provide in-depth discussions of Fantaazma’s music, artistic identity, and innovative performance style, going significantly beyond mere passing references.

If any procedural or tonal improvements are required, these can easily be resolved through standard editing processes rather than deletion. Given the article’s compliance with Wikipedia’s substantive guidelines and reliance on credible sources, deletion is unwarranted. Constructive feedback for editorial improvements is welcomed. Qinifer (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this source says "On his 23rd studio album Album of the Year #1 Funkateer, the Rock and Roll Hall of Famer finds himself in a new position – that of coach and above all, producer. Crafting a sound that sonically runs the Bootsy gamut from bedroom Bootsy, to space-alien adventures to unexpected rock, Collins has drawn together a network of collaborators from Snoop Dogg, Dave Stewart, Wiz Khalifa, October London, Fantaazma and many more who light the fire in him and helped him make the album of the year.". That is a good example of a trivial passing mention of the subject that is not good enough for notability. While this source mentions the subject talking about Bootsy Collins, and isn't actually about them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the second article you cited explicitly includes a two-paragraph description of Fantaazma’s significant artistic contributions to the song and associated short film, followed by a direct quote of lyrics that she wrote and performed. This quote serves as an illustrative example of the aesthetic analysis provided in the source and is not an interview quotation as you have mischaracterized it. Arts-focused publications, including notable ones like Rolling Stone, commonly employ poetic vernacular in their critical assessments, which remains entirely appropriate for establishing notability. As stated in WP:ADD, substantial coverage of a subject within articles ostensibly about another subject demonstrates significance and notability.

Extended content; open for further justification Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Additionally, while some cited references indeed offer brief mentions, like your first citation, these were made to substantiate specific details within sections like discography or collaborations. However, multiple other sources, including the second example you yourself referenced, provide extensive, substantive discussion dedicated explicitly to Fantaazma's creative output and artistic significance.

Regarding your deletions of significant sections, the correct Wikipedia procedure in cases of missing inline citations would have been to use [citation needed] tags, providing the opportunity for appropriate sources to be added or clarified. The deleted content, including the collaborations section, is accurately supported by existing citations already present within the article and could have been easily clarified by distributing existing references more explicitly as some citations made to support the discography could have been re-used in the collaboration section. Your aggressive blanket deletions are not consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines, especially when relevant sources are demonstrably available and already included.

I recognize there may be language barriers causing some confusion or loss of nuance in understanding the critical analysis provided by the multilingual sources. Some of these analytical citations substantiate the content that you aggressively removed without first seeking clarification or tagging them with [citation needed]. I will dedicate time to clearly integrate extensive citations throughout the affected sections, demonstrating that these are credible, verifiable sources and are not unsubstantiated or manufactured as you implied. As stated in WP:ADD, concerns about citations or source clarity warrant editorial improvement rather than wholesale deletion. Qinifer (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, rather than making an effort to improve the article by tagging unsourced statements with ^{[citation needed]}, the nominator has instead chosen to remove significant portions of the article outright. This contradicts Wikipedia's WP:PRESERVE guideline, which encourages improving verifiable content rather than deleting it, especially when sources exist (which they do). If any section requires additional citations, they can be added rather than removed wholesale. This is particularly true for sections like the bibliography, where information should be uncontested but may require more robust substantiation.

I will be working on restoring the deleted biography and bibliography/discography sections while ensuring that all citations are clearly integrated and substantiate the content. This process will take time, but I am committed to improving the article rather than allowing properly sourced material to be unnecessarily removed. Qinifer (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By way of further explanation, the Rolling Stone article does not merely mention Fantaazma in passing. The article provides significant, independent, and substantive coverage of her artistic contributions within Hip Hop Lollipop as a narrative-driven intermedia work. The article appropriately frames the song and film as a modern theatrical performance, analyzing its musical, visual, and thematic elements rather than treating it as a standalone "track" (so to speak).

Rather than merely listing Fantaazma as a featured artist, the article dedicates multiple paragraphs to analyzing her transformation within the performance’s narrative, highlighting her vocal, lyrical, and visual contributions to the structured artistic world of the piece. It appropriately covers Hip Hop Lollipop as a scripted musical and visual journey as an integrated total work of art, with Bootsy Collins assuming a mentor role and Fantaazma undergoing a character evolution, aligning with established coming-of-age storytelling motifs. Additionally, Rolling Stone explicitly quotes her self-penned lyrical lines from the play as part of its thematic discussion of the work, which constitutes substantive critical analysis rather than a mere passing mention. This level of engagement meets WP:N's requirement for significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) and is consistent with how music journalism analyzes intermedia performances that integrate music, performance, and visual storytelling (WP:ARTICLESIG).

Furthermore, Fantaazma is discussed as an equal alongside established, highly notable musicians such as Victor Wooten and Branford Marsalis, reinforcing that her contributions are central to the artistic vision of the track. The depth of discussion and explicit focus on her performance, character transformation, and lyrical contributions meet WP:MUSICBIO's standard for significant independent coverage of an artist's work.

While the article also includes promotional material about Bootsy Collins, the portion covering Fantaazma clearly meets Wikipedia's notability requirements, as it provides direct analysis of her artistic contributions rather than simply name-dropping her. Dismissing this as a "passing mention" is an incorrect characterization of the article’s content and misrepresents how critical arts journalism functions. While framed around Bootsy Collins, who spearheaded the project, the journalist decided that the article should instead ultimately serve as a feature on Hip Hop Lollipop with a significant focus on Fantaazma’s artistic role and contributions above and beyond anyone else involved in the project.

TL;DR: Hip Hop Lollipop is a narrative-driven intermedia work, and Rolling Stone analyzed it as such. The article’s discussion of Fantaazma is substantial, structured, and thematic, not trivial. The article considers her role as a primary contribution worthy of coverage, dedicating three paragraphs to analyzing her performance. This coverage justifies significant notability and critical analysis in a major, credible publication according to WP:N, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ARTICLESIG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. Qinifer (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sugar aside, I can only find coverage about this person's name in articles about a collaboration with Bootsy Collins. No established notability outside of that it seems. Even here the sourcing is largely simple confirmation of performances, or about the Bootsy collab. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't leave a wall of text under my comment... Keep it short and to the point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BLPSOURCES: vastly over-reliant on primary sources (see WP:PTS), passing mentions and press releases, rather than independent, secondary literature. Fails WP:MUSCBO, parts I-XII. Fails WP:ANYBIO: has not received or been nominated for a significant honor; RS does not indicate that his work has made a recognized contribution; and does not have an entry in a major biographical dictionary. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand some prefer brevity in all situations, but detailed engagement with sources and policy-based reasoning is necessary, particularly in complex cases like this. Academic integrity relies on thorough discussion, and it is important that we fully consider all available evidence, even if it requires examining an article's content point by point. This ensures a given source is appropriately characterized as a notable, significant, and substantive feature spread on the subject and not mischaracterized as an in-passing reference. Otherwise, we risk overlooking key aspects that are relevant to evaluating notability. Academic scrutiny and rigor are fundamentals demanded by an encyclopedia, requiring detailed and frequently lengthy engagement with sources in depth.

The German sources, which provide independent analysis of and/or note the cultural impact of Fantaazma’s work before her Bootsy Collins collaboration, appear to me to have been ignored entirely. Per WP:NOENG, non-English sources are explicitly allowed. Has anyone actually reviewed them? If not, then a deletion decision made without considering all available independent sources would be premature.

That said, I acknowledge that there are valid concerns regarding notability, and I appreciate the opportunity this has generated for further substantive analysis. If the conclusion is that the article would be better suited to Draft space for further development, I have no issue with that outcome and would abide by it. My goal is to improve Wikipedia, not have a particular article live. However, if deletion is pursued while relevant sources remain substantively unreviewed at the level of the academic thorough rigor demanded by an encyclopedia, that would be premature. Qinifer (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael O'Dwyer (academic)

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

Not notable - I did a little bit of searching and could find next to nothing about him, much less anything worth an article. EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 07:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, France, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm leaning keep on the basis of WP:NAUTHOR — I found at least four reviews of one of his books [15] [16] [17] [18], plus three more reviews that don't seem to be available online. That said, I don't think he quite meets WP:NPROF and I don't think the award he won (which is the lowest grade of the Ordre des Palmes académiques) counts for much. So I tend towards a weak WP:NAUTHOR pass based on the reviews I found, but will try to come back to this when I have time to do a fuller search to see if there's anything stronger. MCE89 (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I couldn't find more reviews of the books listed here as his than the ones above, and the commonness of his name prevents me from attributing any other books and their reviews to him. With four published reviews, the book may be notable, and if someone wants to create an article about it, we could redirect to it, but I'm not going to argue for a pass of WP:AUTHOR based only on one book. I agree with the nominator that the lowest grade of the academic palms is not enough by itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see coverage in French sources about this person. Any English sources seem to be for the one book, but I'm not sure those are enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Horns

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

Fails WP:N. As far as I can see, only one source in the article - Medieval.eu - could qualify as a WP:RS, but it is about a different symbol/character with horns and doesn't mention the article's subject at all. The unreliable sources have the three horns as a variation of the triskelion, but I don't support redirecting the page there, as I can't find any RS that calls it Odin's Horns. The scholarly material I find about the Snoldelev Stone just describes it as three interlaced horns, without giving it a name or making connections to mythology. Ffranc (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ffranc (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Ffranc (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Ffranc (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find there are RS books which make the connection between this rune on the Snoldelev Stone and Norse mythology. For example, this one refers to it as (a symbol of the Odhinic Cult) while another suggests the the Triskele here is doubtless the Mark of Thor). I haven't yet found it referred to as Odin's Horns though. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayhem on the Beach

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

This article should be merged into the album page, as the event is not (yet) notable enough to warrant its own article. Lady Gaga is also performing a promotional concert in Mexico City, making it unlikely that this show is uniquely significant. Additionally, as the article itself states, "Niemeyer also confirmed that Lady Gaga will debut a brand-new show, which will premiere earlier at Coachella in April." This further supports that the performance is part of a broader promotional concert series spanning multiple countries rather than a distinct event. Given the uncertainty regarding whether these shows are part of an actual concert tour, maintaining a separate article at this stage is premature.

Furthermore, the article includes lines like, "Events of this scale offer multiple benefits to the city, both economically and in terms of tourism and image, highlighting the best that Rio de Janeiro has to offer." This kind of language makes it sound more like a puff piece from the country's tourism department rather than an encyclopedic entry. Sricsi (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an update: Gaga now has announced 2 concerts in Mexico City, and 4 in Singapore, all of them with very similar promotional material as this one event in Brazil. --Sricsi (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I believe that Mayhem on the Beach warrants its own article due to its distinct characteristics and significance. While Lady Gaga is performing multiple promotional concerts for Mayhem, the Rio de Janeiro event stands out for several reasons. Unlike the Long Live Mayhem concert in Mexico, which is a standard ticketed show, Mayhem on the Beach is a free, large-scale event organized as part of Todo Mundo no Rio. This distinction is relevant, as it affects the accessibility, audience reach, and organizational structure of the concert. While Long Live Mayhem is directly produced by Gaga’s team in collaboration with Live Nation Entertainment, Mayhem on the Beach is integrated into a broader cultural initiative with its own independent framework. Removing the standalone article would overlook this context and its relevance to Todo Mundo no Rio. Additionally, the concert is expected to attract over one million attendees, making it one of Gaga’s largest performances and a major entertainment event in Brazil. Similar large-scale promotional concerts, such as Madonna: Tears of a Clown and ArtRave, have warranted separate articles, establishing a precedent for events of this nature.

Per Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, concerts and live events merit independent articles when they are widely covered by reliable sources, hold cultural or historical significance, and differ from standard promotional performances. Mayhem on the Beach meets these criteria due to its scale, media coverage, and integration into Todo Mundo no Rio. If the concern is that this concert is part of a broader promotional tour, a better approach would be to expand the article rather than merge it. If necessary, its inclusion within the Todo Mundo no Rio page could be considered, but simply merging it into the Mayhem album article would diminish its distinct context and significance. That line "Events of this scale offer multip..." is a direct quotation from the CEO of the company responsible for bringing Lady Gaga to Brazil, stated in the context of the event’s production and the reasoning behind selecting her as the headlining artist. The article also includes statements from the Mayor of Rio de Janeiro and the Secretary of Culture, which further emphasize the scale and significance of this concert for both the city and the Todo Mundo no Rio initiative. These quotes provide essential context on the economic, cultural, and touristic impact of the event, which has been widely covered by reliable sources. While the wording can certainly be adjusted or shortened, the information itself adds valuable context to the article. Additionally, these statements serve as a foundation for further coverage, as more details and perspectives from organizers, officials, and media outlets will emerge as the event approaches. Over time, the article will naturally expand to include sections on commercial performance, critical reception, and other post-event analyses, making these initial citations an important starting point.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparisons don't quite add up. ArtRave was an exclusive two-day event created specifically for Lady Gaga's Artpop album release, while Tears of a Clown was a one-of-a-kind performance designed for Madonna's Australian audience. There's no indication that this upcoming Brazilian concert will resemble either of those.

The only valid comparison is Madonna’s free concert in Brazil, which also drew significant attention but doesn’t have its own article. That event ultimately served as the final show of her Celebration Tour, rather than a standalone production.

Given the promotional material for Gaga’s Mexico City performance, it appears these concerts may be part of a broader promotional tour. However, at this point, it's all speculation—falling under WP:CRYSTAL. Sricsi (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used ArtRave and Tears of a Clown as models for structuring the article rather than claiming Mayhem on the Beach is identical to them. When I first created this page, the Mexico City concert hadn't been announced, and even now, it differs significantly as a ticketed event, whereas Mayhem on the Beach is a large-scale free concert organized as part of Todo Mundo no Rio. Coachella, on the other hand, is part of an established festival and follows a different framework altogether. As of now, a Mayhem tour has not been announced. Gaga has historically named her tours following a specific format (album name + Ball Tour), and when she launches a new era, she typically announces full tours with substantial lead time. While these performances may share the same production and setlist, they are currently positioned as a series of standalone promotional concerts rather than a structured tour.

If the concern is that Mayhem on the Beach should not be treated in isolation, a reasonable alternative could be revising the title or consolidating all three concerts into a single article. However, outright merging it into the album page doesn’t seem appropriate, as there is significant sourced material specific to Mayhem on the Beach that wouldn't naturally fit within an album article. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do think that the page article should be renamed per WP:MV, condensing the shows held at Coachella, Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro as a Mayhem promotional tour, similarly to the Dive Bar Tour. Bichota B (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. The event isn’t notable enough for its own article, and seems to be just one stopover of a larger promo run. Plus some of the language does make it read like an ad for the city (Rio). Merge it to Mayhem (Lady Gaga album). Kirtap92 (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kirtap92. My intention was never to make the article read like an advertisement for Rio. The inclusion of statements from government officials and event organizers was meant to provide context for why Lady Gaga was chosen to headline and to illustrate the scale of the Todo Mundo no Rio initiative. However, I understand the concern about tone, and I’m open to revising the wording to ensure neutrality while maintaining the relevant sourced information. The event’s significance is well-documented, and it differs from a standard promotional stop due to its unique structure, free admission, and integration into a larger cultural initiative. If necessary, adjustments can be made to improve the article, but outright merging it into the album page would erase valuable context. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This kind of article isn't comparable to Madonna's Tears of a Clown show at all, in fact the only standard it can be compared to is Madonna's performance also on Copacabana Beach, which doesn't have an article of its own. As Shellwood noted, the existence of the Mexico show implies she's doing a mini Mayhem Ball for LATAM specifically, so to single out the Bracil show doesn't make any sense. I think it should be deleted until the show happens and maybe the coverage will ramp up to warrant notability.PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Firstly, the article and the event are not directly linked to the Mayhem album. Mayhem on The Beach is a promotional name created by the singer's team to promote the album internationally, while the event's original name is Todo Mundo no Rio: Lady Gaga. Therefore, associating the article with the Mayhem album no longer makes sense, as it was merely a promotional title. Secondly, the event is part of Todo Mundo no Rio and not a concert from Lady Gaga's tour. It is more like a special edition of a festival, featuring exclusive content and having no connection to the Mayhem Tour.

Vazafirst (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then move this show to Todo Mundo Na Rio-there's no precedence for this article to have its own article. How do we know it's going to have "exclusive" content though? Isn't it all the more likely the setlist will be the same for Mexico, Singapore and Brazil since they're all promoting the same album? PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : However, I do believe that the title should be moved to Mayhem (promotional tour) and the article itself should comprise as well the performances held at Coachella, Mexico City and Singapore. Bezarista Number One (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal. Moving the article to Mayhem (promotional tour) would allow for a more comprehensive overview of these performances while still maintaining space to discuss the specifics of each location. This way, the significance of Mayhem on the Beach within Todo Mundo no Rio can still be properly contextualized, alongside the shows in Mexico City, Singapore, and Coachella. CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. The performances are presumed to be similar (if not identical) to each other anyway. TenthAvenueFreezeOut (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no clear consensus following previous relisting on 10 March
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartathenian (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlem Education

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

No in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, majority sources are unreliable and PR stuff, fails GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. GrabUp - Talk 09:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Schools, United Arab Emirates, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noufal Ahmed

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

No independent Rs found with in-depth coverage, fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, fails WP:GNG. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 10:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evogene

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

lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources, making it difficult to verify its notability per Wikipedia’s guidelines for companies. Loewstisch (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Lack of adequate sourcing demonstrating significant coverage from reliable sources. Madeleine (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources in Hebrew? There are plenty of in-depth sources out there! gidonb (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Constant coverage in Israeli and international media. AfD is clearly focused on the weak referencing at Enwiki, however, per WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. It's written in bold in the notability guideline, so we should not miss. Specifically, more sources are only one click away at the Hewiki article. Doing the due diligence needed for an AfD, many of the Evogene articles contain SIGCOV, for example [19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. And that is just a few articles in two leading Israeli newspapers. There is much more. There is not even a beginning of a case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by gidonb are enough to satisfy WP:NCORP. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources above look like strong non-routine coverage in two major national newspapers. Rusalkii (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No they are not strong non-routine coverage in two major national newspapers. One is a profile and one is a press-release. Both fail WP:SIRS. It is a listed company and they usually get a pass but there is no coverage on this company. On the refs above:
Ref 1 [[26]] This is a conversation with the ceo. It fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 2 [27] This is a from a press-release and its not independent. It fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 [28] This is failed acquisition news. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 4 [29] This is a from a press-release. It is not independent. WP:SIRS
Ref 5 [30] This is another interview with Habib. It fails WP:ORGIND

I might have missed a reference but the paper is known as heavy user of primary sources and press-releases. There is a no secondary source here that passes WP:NCORP. All the information that has been presented comes straight from the mouth of the ceo, Habib. Fails WP:NCORP scope_creep^Talk 11:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: After reading Scope_creep's critical assessment and re-reading the sources, I have to say I mostly agree, except that this source and this source contain significant background information with unclear independence. Regardless, the presented sources don't seem to contain enough clearly independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORGSIG. This correctly rules out inherent notability and goes on to state that if the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable. The article as written is like a press release, making unsubstantiated claims on the company's behalf. It fails WP:V as these claims are unsourced. The key word in all this is independent, as noted by both Loewstisch and Scope creep above. It is true that the newspapers have no direct connection with Evogene, and are independent in any commercial sense. What matters is their coverage of Evogene, because that is not independent if it was all provided by Evogene. We do not have significant independent coverage. Spartathenian (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reference : [31] is from a press-release. I can't see the second one. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Neither can I—the Adblocker kicks in. As for the first one, they're just repeating what Haviv has told them, so the coverage isn't independent. Spartathenian (talk) Spartathenian (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on references 2 and 5 from your assessment. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Markaz College of Arts and Science

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article, and not found reliable coverage to add, though I may be missing references in other languages. The college was established in 2008, so it may be too soon for it to have received significant coverage. Redirect to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Calicut could be a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Tacyarg (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SATHEE - Online Learning Platform

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

Typical advertising spam that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SATHEE initiative provides free and open access to quality education for weaker sections of Indian society. The article is needed for documenting constructive efforts in public education and highlight the role of Technology in providing equitable access to all sections of society. This is in alignment with sustainable development goals (SDGs). There are plenty of citable sources in public domain to refer for verifiable information.

Feedback and suggestions for improvement are welcome. It is suggested that the article is kept. Abhijeetsaxena21 (talk) 09:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Abhijeetsaxena21 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shola Akinlade

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

should be removed due to the lack of independent, reliable sources to support the claims made in the article. Akinlade's notability may be better covered within broader fintech topics instead of maintaining a dedicated article. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, Football, Software, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paystack

AfDs for this article:

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

should be removed due to its lack of sufficient independent sources and potential violations of notability standards for companies. It may be more appropriate to include Paystack within the context of broader fintech topics. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The sources in the article all look like churnalism or routine announcements, but I did find this at the BBC: [32], and this (mostly interview) from CNN: [33], and this from BusinessDay Nigeria: [34]. None of those look especially in-depth but there is some diffuse coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has an interview with such coverage: Stripe acquired Nigeria’s Paystack, reportedly for over $200 million. Founded in Lagos in 2015, Paystack says it now has more than 60,000 clients, including corporations like Domino’s Pizza and telecom giant MTN.

Businessday has only this mention: Companies like Flutterwave (Nigeria), M-Pesa (Kenya), and Paystack (Nigeria) have transformed the digital payments landscape

BBC is also an interview-video 2 minutes long Unicorbia (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are not reliable (mentions, interviews, wp:trades), thus not following the NCORP rule. Unicorbia (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Technology, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Engsh

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

Volten001 ^☎ 06:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC) The article is about a very small variety of Sheng slang but unlike Sheng, it cannot really be classified as a language and lacks sufficient citations.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Volten001 ^☎ 07:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CUP book chapter checks out, and indeed covers this subject. But there's a reason that Marshagreen (talk · contribs) only supported the first sentence with it. It does not appear to support the rest of the article as written, which is pretty sophomoric. It didn't support the first sentence as originally written, as the source makes no mention of the 1980s. The IJSL article cited by Egpetersen (talk · contribs) checks out, too. All of Dorleijn, Mous, Nortier, and Abdulaziz check out as variously Dutch and Kenyan linguists; and the sources are non-trivial. That makes 2 good sources that were already cited in the article at the time of nomination, albeit that they were so poorly cited (by the wrong authors and by broken bare URLs with the wrong article title) that I had to hunt for what was being cited. I've fixed the citations so that the next editor has less of a hurdle than I had. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a variety of Sheng, and something doesn't have to be a language in order to be notable. I don't know that Engsh has an army and a navy, but there are sufficient citations in the literature, and I just added one that proves my first point. The article needs work, not deletion. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apologies for I am somehow new in this AfD space and I am not sure whether voting on my own nomination is valid. I now believe nominating this article was not a very good idea though by doing so, it has helped in many ways by shedding light to it and for the improvements made to the article. It still needs a lot of work as per @Drmies and of those with similar opinions and therefore I would request this article to be kept. Volten001 ^☎ 07:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia in Bangladesh

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

Mainly an AI generated article that makes no sense, and is written in violation of WP:OR and WP:RGW.

"concerns extend to scientific and social subjects. The new science curriculum presents the theory of evolution in a way that some Islamic scholars claim contradicts Islamic teachings, particularly regarding human origins. The presence of cultural themes perceived as promoting liberal Western values, such as music and dance, has also been a source of contention. Some conservative groups argued that these elements indirectly promote secularism over Islamic principles"

What does this mean? Is the support for scientific research Islamophobic? That's how this article is entirely full of WP:OR. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 04:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any specific evidence that the article is AI-generated? It throws up a few red flags in general tone to me, but that doesn't always mean something came out of an AI. And if the citations aren't made up, it is relatively well-cited. Although I agree that paragraph should maybe be removed. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any valid concern that violates Wikipedia policies, the paragraph can be rewritten. However, the deletion of the entire article is harsh in this case. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources that can be used for certifying the title itself. It sounds nothing more than a blatant hoax to claim there exists Islamophobia in Bangladesh. Dympies (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Islamophobia in Bangladesh is a well-documented topic covered by multiple independent, reliable sources, all of which are cited in the article. Dismissing a properly sourced subject as a ‘hoax’ without engaging with the sources is a clear bias. Personal disbelief is not a valid reason for deletion. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Every paragraph in this article cites multiple independent, relevant, and reliable sources. Almost every sentence of the article is directly or indirectly mentioned in sources. In the part of the article you mentioned, it's clearly written that "Islamic scholars claim" and "Some conservative groups argued," which is also mentioned in the sources and does not contain my opinion. This article meets WP:V and does not violate WP:OR.

RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reply anymore in this discussion due to personal reasons. I appreciate all the feedback and perspectives shared here. Thank you... RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 13:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete - "Beyond historical content, concerns extend to scientific and social subjects. The new science curriculum presents the theory of evolution in a way that some Islamic scholars claim contradicts Islamic teachings, particularly regarding human origins. The presence of cultural themes perceived as promoting liberal Western values, such as music and dance, has also been a source of contention. Some conservative groups argued that these elements indirectly promote secularism over Islamic principles" Apparently, science is Islamophobic, lol. While he talks about music and dance allegedly promoting Western values, he forgets to mention that Bangladesh itself is a secular state. This article does nothing but promote the views of extremists. FNH004 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this paragraph, it's clearly mentioned that "conservative groups argued". This means this is not my opinion but what is mentioned in the sources there was a concern regarding this. Also, you said "This article does nothing but promote the views of extremists" which is just your personal opinion and Bias.

RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 07:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The contents provided are better suited for a "religious extremisim in Bangladesh" article tbh. Almost none of the problems (science, dancing, music, textbooks promoting other religions) mentioned have anything to do with oppression and everything to do with the radical beliefs of these so called "conservative groups", and you are showing a clear bias by defending them. FNH004 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are already multiple articles about this (extremism in Bangladesh) btw. If there is any specific concern about this paragraph, the paragraph can be removed or rewritten. However, deleting an entire article for one paragraph does not make sense. And I am not defending them but saying that the paragraph does not promote extremism. It is what extremists thought or said at that time. Also, there are other sections and subsections in this article other than the new curriculum topic.

RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 08:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other section states that the 2013 Shahbag protests were "framed as a call for justice, the movement displayed Islamophobic tendencies through its rhetoric and actions against Islamic groups". The sources you provided this and this say nothing of that sort. So what you're basically saying is that protests against war criminals is somehow Islamophobic?

How is this: In 2013, protests erupted over the demand for the death penalty for Islamist leaders accused of war crimes..... Islamophobic?

It seems to me that you term anything challenging the beliefs of these Islamic groups to be "Islamophobia". FNH004 (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. But in this case, many political organizations as well as Amar Desh marked it as an Anti-Islamic protest.1 2 3 Directly it was a protest demanding death penalties of 1971 war criminals. But indirectly a part of the movement was anti-Islamic. Also, the movement is being criticized after the resignation of the ex-cabinet.

Moreover, the protest was the cause of the Shapla Square protest and what happened in Shapla Square was definitely anti-Islamic.

RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 09:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That first source says that Jamaat is calling the protest anti-Islamic but does not make the claim itself. It even puts "anti-Islamic atheists" in quotes. The second one labels the protests anti-Jamaat, not anti-Islam. Both of those concerns apply to the third source. "Indirectly a part of the movement was anti-Islamic" is original research if you do not have a reliable secondary source saying that the movement was anti-Islamic; being "indirect" demonstrates that the reading does not directly appear in RS. "The movement is being criticized after the resignation of the ex-cabinet" is not a reason to keep the article. "What happened in Shapla Square was definitely anti-Islamic" is also OR; it's only reason to keep the article if you have an RS supporting that view. See also WP:NPOV - a Wikipedian's personal analysis of what is and isn't Islamophobic does not constitute an RS. Anerdw (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Islamophobia in Bangladesh is a genuine issue. The article in question has systematically proven this using reliable sources. The nominator has argued that certain portions of the article were created using ChatGPT. Therefore, my humble request to them is that if an article has shortcomings, such as needing copyediting or containing AI-generated sections, it should be corrected. That is the role of editors and their work. The entire article should not be deleted outright (as per WP:ATD). Best! Baqi:) (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because of AI or lack of sourcing, but because of WP:OR. Every source I could access talked about either Islamophobia in general, or violence/controversies in Bangladesh, but did not link the two (I did not check the Bengali sources, so I can't be sure about those). The author seems to be making these connections in their own mind, a classic WP:SYNTH. For example, Refs. 6-9 discuss the Shapla Chattar massacre, but not one of them describes anyone at all calling it Islamophobic (not even the lengthy Human Rights Watch report, which never once uses that term, "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Islam"); Ref. 8 comes close, but only by describing the positions of the protestors, not any reaction to the attack. I don't see any reason we couldn't have an article on this topic, but not this article.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean, violence against Muslims doesn't have any connection with islamophobia? Petition to remove Islam as a state religion isn't islamophobia? Killing 1000-3000 Muslims in a day isn't islamophobia? The sources must have mentioned the term "islamophobiaaaa"?? And if you want sources about calling Shahbag Movement anti-Islamic, - 1 2 3... ~ RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 11:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Petition to remove Islam as a state religion isn't islamophobia? Yes, it isn't. OF COURSE it isn't. The fact that you're asking this question raises some big bright red flags. VdSV9•♫ 12:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain, what kind of big bright red flags? RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 13:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let others put your behavior for a review at WP:ANI. You can start by reading WP:BLUD. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I can explain. The fact that you asked that question shows that you can't tell the difference between people not wanting the Country they live in to have an official religion (i.e. petition to remove the state religion) and some sort of prejudice or hatred against the followers that religion (which is what islamophobia means). It's sort of like if I called you a homophobe because you refused to have sex with me (assuming you are also a man) - not really analogous, but similar. The difference should be obvious, and the most likely cause for this sort of ideological blindness is extreme bias, which usually is a bad thing when you're trying to contribute to an encyclopedia that has as one of its core policies, a neutral point of view. VdSV9•♫ 18:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of outright WP:SYNTH throughout the article, I still see no reason to believe that Islamophobia exists in Bangladesh. Just like there is no reason to believe that science is Islamophobic. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "I still see no reason to believe that Islamophobia exists in Bangladesh." ??

And who said science is Islamophobic?? Have you read the discussion above?
RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 12:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article you created suggests that there is Islamophobia in Bangladesh since "The new science curriculum presents the theory of evolution in a way that some Islamic scholars claim contradicts Islamic teachings, particularly regarding human origins." which apparently created a "Controversy Over the New Curriculum". How is that Islamophobia and not radical Islamists being angry over the government not aligning with their beliefs? FNH004 (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, that can be edited. Wikipedia is not like it can't be edited. Removal of the article is the removal of the topic. This is my objection. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 12:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above discussion. WP:OR & WP:SYNTH

Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 12:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any RS describing notable presence of Islamophobia in Bangladesh. Sources that directly connect Islamophobia with Bangladesh either do so as a strawman ("X group is saying that X action was Islamophobic" as opposed to "X action was Islamophobic") or are about people in Bangladesh speaking against Islamophobia abroad. Regardless of the existence of RS, WP:TNT seems relevant; this particular article contains far too much analysis to be salvageable even if an article about Islamophobia in Bangladesh is feasible. Anerdw (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not the right place for promoting what "Islamist groups have often criticized". Many of the sources don't even make mention of "Bangladesh"[35] or "Islamophobia"[36] but have been used here. CharlesWain (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Islamophobia in a 92 percent Muslim country? This is a hilarious laundry list of things Muslim extremists do not like so they are "Islamophobic". Vinegarymass911 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a big mess of OR and POV. The article treats as “Islamophobia” anything that is incongruent with Islam as the singular dominant religion of Bangladesh - eg secularism.OsFish (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Astudillo

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

I'm not seeing SIGCOV for this individual. KH-1 (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politics, Psychology, and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete under WP:GNG. I can't find any secondary sources that mention him more than in passing. Most sources I can find are interviews and his organization's official website. As for WP:PROF, this paper appears to be his only academic work and does not appear to be significantly cited. Note that the article was deprodded but did not receive an edit that resolved the concerns in the PROD. Anerdw (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the alleged think tank is a complete work of WP:PUFF. The guy is a grad student, and has no notable papers under his belt. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Love & Love Only

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

Non notable film. Sourced to pr about the soundtrack. Lacks independent coverage. No sign of any reviews. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Precisely, the music makes it notable; meets WP:NFIC as important in the career of a notable person; https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/ilayaraja-goes-international-with-english-film-love-and-love-only-116111600673_1.html https://www.sbs.com.au/language/hindi/en/podcast-episode/australian-indian-film-love-n-love-only/pg6w18ajt https://www.deccanchronicle.com/151024/entertainment-tvmusic/article/ilaiyaraja-composes-music-indo-australian-film (Ilayaraja's first non-Indian film) (as I indicated at least once in one of my edits to the page) -Mushy Yank. 10:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NFIC says it must be a major part of his career. No evidence of this being the case. Being the (maybe) first English language film he scored is not that important. Secondly per that criteria's second line it would not clutter up his biography page if it was mentioned there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[37] Bloodstone 1988 English language film, music by Ilayaraja. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bloodstone is an Indian (and American) film (with crew and cast partially Indian), shot in Bangalore and set in India (and the music is by Jerry J. Grant, with the title song by Thomas Marolda; I can't even see Ilayaraja's name in the end credits...(nor hear his music)).

Maybe the fact that this Australian film is his (1st real) non-Indian film is not that important for you or for me, but sources seem to consider it is important for him. If you don't think it's going to clutter up his bio, feel free to redirect it (or add it to list of films he scored in the 2020s). (Btw, Bloodstone is listed in List of film scores by Ilaiyaraaja 1980s but with no source and he did not "score" the film; at best his work was used (uncredited?); I would tend to think we should remove it without a source if ImdB is all that there is). Thank you for your concern. -Mushy Yank. 02:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't focus on it being non Indian but on being (incorrectly) first in English. And none say it's a major part of his career. None of those sources are much good. Director says this, director says that. The comments on the music is because that's what his pr is pushing. (Pandavas: The Five Warriors is English language, so no fact checking done by source I guess). duffbeerforme (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. — Maile (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiernan Tague incident

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

Deproded. Not notable. Does not pass any aspect of WP:NEVENT. Also BLPCRIME issues. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the whole as it has turned out there was not lasting significance given the mother was not in fact charged. Strong keep-- passes the "lasting coverage" criterion of the event notability policy as the precedent this case sets will have a lasting impact on law. Well-sourced and cites a number of reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. The only reason to delete it would be to claim that it was routine and completely unimportant, but given the sources discuss precedent, this is not the case. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see WP:BLPCRIME issues -- he has pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter, and the article only says he was being accused of 2nd-degree murder (which needs to be updated, though). The article is about the crime, so saying it should not mention the crime is not applicable. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The entire claim to notability is based on the mother. There is nothing notable about drunk driving. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles Are we looking at the same article? This is an article on someone who hasn't been convicted of a crime that has virtually no coverage to sustain WP:LASTING.

There was no precedent because she didn't even end up being charged! That was the conclusion! There is no precedent. All of the sourcing is primary, as it does not reflect or do any of its own analysis, it is just Thing Happened PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally this is a car crash that made the local and tabloid news for a few days. The only update is them saying they would not charge the mother. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will admit did not notice that part. I kind of want to keep it just because it is so well-sourced, but given there does not seem to have been lasting significance I'll probably strike my vote. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really "well-sourced". PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was a reasonable idea there might have been lasting significance when the article was created -- only we now know there has not been lasting significance. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Transportation, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing NEVENT. No indication of lasting relevance. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No signs of lasitng relevance. All sources are from 2023. RealStanger43286 (Let's talk!) 06:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Vehicular manslaughter isn't terribly notable. Kid went too fast in a car and hit a tree, passenger died. This is no different than any other such type of accident. Mother was not charged/convicted, so there is nothing left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Rediscovery of "Lost" Species

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

This has got to be one of the worst articles I have ever seen. There are zero inline citations. The text is likely AI-generated (as I found by pasting it into https://gptzero.me ). The section headers are a blatant violation of MOS:HEADINGS, including an unnecessary header that repeats the article's title, two more unnecessary "Contents" and "Introduction" sections, and the rest of the headings are in title case. There were two prior attempts to redirect this to Lazarus species, but they were both undone, so that's why I'm bringing this to AfD so that it can be redirected again. Duckmather (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Duckmather (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.tree.2006.10.004 is a fake source in the References section, a common indicator of AI-generated, casting doubt on the reliability of the rest of the Further reading section (unless it's just the wrong link by mistake, although that seems less likely). Given this and the fact that most of the rest of the article is unsourced, it doesn't need to be merged to Lazarus species. I would vote Keep except (a) we already have an article on this, and I don't think it should be redirected because this isn't a good article title for a redirect anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to note that the creator of this article, User:Sbinbae, appears to be a student editor, so they might be understandably new at this. But they should probably be working on Lazarus species if this is the topic they're interested in. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already exists at Lazarus taxon. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is redundant, poorly written, and unsourced. The Lazarus taxon page is much better written than this AI slop. Also, since when did reintroduced extinct in the wild species count as a rediscovery? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding to this nomination the following article:

... which was created by the same user and has substantially identical content, except that the word "Lost" in the article title isn't in quotation marks. Delete both per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this is one of the few examples I have seen where an AfD nomination pertains to a problematic course while the class is still in progress. Usually I don't see articles like this at AfD until the class is over. See Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Art Center College of Design/History of Extinction (Trimester) and https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Art_Center_College_of_Design/History_of_Extinction_(Trimester) for pages we should keep an eye on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We already have coverage for most of these animals that were rediscovered. This honestly reads like a clickbait article on a sketchy website with too many ads that pop up. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in San Diego County, California

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

WP:NOT. This is as close it as it can get to a directory/Yellow Page and I question the encyclopedic value. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Lists, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. DotesConks (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but remove all of the breweries without Wikipedia articles. Keeping this list up-to-date is unrealistic -- the only reason to keep it is to serve as a navigational aid for the several Wikipedia articles on breweries in the county, but that is a good reason to do so. The yellow-pages problem can be fixed by deleting everything without a Wikipedia article -- anything that gets an article can be re-added. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of breweries in California. Agree with @Mrfoogles that we should not be listing non-notable locations – microbreweries are common and usually unremarkable local businesses like other stores and restaurants and don't need to be listed, but this doesn't warrant a separate county list. The statewide list should also be trimmed to the notable ones though. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Going to note merging appears to have been already discussed on the talk page of this list, so there might be some useful info there. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of breweries in California. Keep only notable entries (with articles) and cleanse the rest. Ajf773 (talk) 09:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marv (Sin City)

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

Minor comic book character. While there is a reception, it is just a summary of several listicles, in which the character takes at best a 24th place. Other than that, this is just a plot summary and a list of appearances in various media. This fails WP:GNG and at best could be redirected to the List of Sin City characters _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Sin City characters: the info currently in reception can be merged to the list, condensed to about a sentence, probably, and the rest of the article is just plot summary. Did a quick google and didn't find anything obvious -- it seems unlikely by assumption he needs his own article separate from Sin City. I don't know of a lot of reviews that only talk about one character except for the most famous works. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo

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

WP:MILL WP:NOTGENEALOGY - reads mostly like a genealogical entry, half of the article is about family tree and their place in it, the rest is places they worked and where they got an education. D1551D3N7 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Mexico. D1551D3N7 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Did a source review -- none of them currently have a significant description of him. He gets mentioned in the margins as his father, etc. is discussed, mostly, and there are a bunch of non-independent sources about him at conferences. One article talks about his children, interestingly enough, but not really him.

Googling, I immediately find sources mentioning him -- e.g.

Overall they seem to all focus on events he attends & one or two interviews, but not really about him. There's also this book in Spanish whose relevance I'm unsure of.

However, I feel like a more thorough Spanish source search might turn up some things. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaan Önder

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

In its current state, almost certainly fails A7. Previous revisions contained more content regarding his racing career but still seem to fail WP:NMOTORSPORT, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG - most of the races and cups listed are junior, neither the European Touring Car Cup nor the Audi Sport TT seem independently notable enough to warrant an article on a racer, and secondary sources largely mention him in passing or based on his connection to Andy Priaulx. Anerdw (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Sportspeople. Anerdw (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not yet remotely attained in WP:Prof: nothing else to be found. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT and WP:Prof. There is insufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability in motorsports or science (neither physics nor political economy). The available sources primarily mention him in passing, and his racing career does not appear to have significant achievements at a high enough level to warrant a standalone article. Mostly karting or junior championships. No indendent sources on academic career.Penguti86 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

155 West Washington Boulevard

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

Art Deco building that fails WP:NBUILDING. Other than a article from 1959 that stated it was a County Assessors building, nothing notable has seemed to happen at this building. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:21, 10 March 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) 22:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to two pictures in a library collection, and an archived WWW site that offers to sell us summaries of public records connected to any building one picks, for a fee, albeit that Emporis actually does not exist any more. The article claims that it is in a "historic" district. History seems to have entirely ignored it. I thought that I was on to something with an Arcadia Publishing book, but it turned out that the search engine had robotically but uselessly matched the text of the small print at the bottom of a newspaper advertisement in a picture. Even in the 1940s and 1950s trade magazines this is just an address. This can only ever be the building directory listing that it is now. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually does get a short description on page 94 of Arcadia Press's Los Angeles, California (9780738508122): Google Books link. There, it is referred to as the Mode O'Day Building. It was also known as the International Mart Building. I think there may be some potential here with further research. The current article title is not very helpful for searching. Zagalejo (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually hit the Arcadia book about Camp Anza. And the book you point to does not say a single thing about the building, which is a problem in what I found on that company too. It only describes the Mode O'Day company in general and cannot quite source any complete sentence that we have at Gamble-Skogmo#Mode O'Day. Alas, we do not get to tease Drmies with the Zucchi Furniture Company or the one that I found that similarly had nothing at all on the building that the organization moved into, which was a branch of the United States War Assets Administration (War Assets Administration to locals). It is all just addresses. Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the fact that the Arcadia Los Angeles book includes the building at all is enough to motivate me to keep looking. There are enough scraps of information available that I still don't want to dismiss the topic entirely. I also found this, from the Los Angeles Historic Resources Inventory. Interestingly, that lists 1836 S. Hill Street as the primary address, and 155 W. Washington as an alternative address. That's something new to unpack, but perhaps it is potentially useful. (To be clear, I'm not specifically arguing to keep the article, but I want to share some links as potential leads for more information.) Zagalejo (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily that's not quite true -- the Los Angeles historical evaluation has some useful info. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually mentioned a few times in a publication of the Circus Historical Society, of all things. Apparently, the circus used to pay visits to that area of Los Angeles. Zagalejo (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - All to a showground next door, with the building mentioned as seen in the background of a picture or where the picture is taken from. Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I appreciate that Uncle G doesn't bold !vote, but this discussion needs some direction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I've been able to find some information on it and a photo, which I have added, and it seems very possible that more exists. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, oddly enough, the historical evaluation describes it as having been continuously a garment factory since 1927, but some (somewhat unreliable) online sources Mode O'Day was founded 1932, and a photograph from 1959 in a university library which seems to claim to be of the same building has a label indicating it was in use by a county. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Took a quick look and there seems to be a lot of sources available for this building on Newspapers.com. The article can definitely be expanded, and it looks like Mrfoogles has already undertaken that process. Sewageboy (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Action Party (British Columbia)

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

Fails WP:ORG. My search through Google resources (e.g. Google Books, Google Scholar) and provincial archives (accessed through Vancouver City archives and UBC archives) yielded no in-depth coverage by reliable sources. The party existed in between elections and did not contest any elections before dissolving. There is therefore no obvious claim of notability. Yue🌙 00:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 00:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emerged Democracy Party of British Columbia

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

Fails WP:ORG. My search through Google resources (e.g. Google Books, Google Scholar) and provincial archives (accessed through Vancouver City archives and UBC archives) yielded no in-depth coverage by reliable sources. The party achieved insignificant results (less than one-hundredth of a percent) in the one election it contested, so there is no obvious claim of notability. Yue🌙 00:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 00:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kio Yamada

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

This is a interesting one. Yamada played for Bayer Leverkusen's under 19s, there's match reports like this [38] from Leverkusen's website, but after joining YSCC Yokohama in 2019, he played once and then disappeared from the sport. Maybe there's coverage about him out there (due to him playing for Leverkusen) so I'm nominating it. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - JP article only usable is this article [39] while JP gnews yield unrelated articles. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link BC

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

Fails WP:ORG. My search through Google resources (e.g. Google Books, Google Scholar) and provincial archives (accessed through Vancouver City archives and UBC archives) yielded no in-depth coverage by reliable sources. The party existed in between elections and did not contest any elections before dissolving. There is therefore no obvious claim of notability. Yue🌙 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For reasons above and the fact that it cites no sources (which would fail being talked about in WP:NOTABILITY). DotesConks (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Youth Coalition

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

Fails WP:ORG. My search through Google resources (e.g. Google Books, Google Scholar) and provincial archives (accessed through Vancouver City archives and UBC archives) yielded no in-depth coverage by reliable sources. The party's electoral results in 2005 were insignificant as well, so there is no obvious claim of notability. Yue🌙 00:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 00:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Kobayashi (footballer)

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

I was going to nominate this for a proposed deletion, but due to my computer glitching as I typed it, I'm nominating it for an AFD.

Kobayashi played 12 times [40] before dropping down into the regional leagues. Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Interestingly, there is a corresponding article on numerous other wikis, except ja.wiki Svartner (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Seems to be non-notable. Google News Yield articles about Takayuki Kobayashi and gekisaka have no usable articles from him. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 04:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Clayton Cramer | CWI Directory". College of Western Idaho. 2012-03-01. Retrieved 2025-03-18.

[HNN2-2] "What Clayton Cramer Saw and (Nearly) Everyone Else Missed". History News Network, George Mason University. January 6, 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2009.

[3] Cramer, Clayton (March 2012). "Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder" (PDF). Engage. 13 (1). Federalist Society: 37–43. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2020. Retrieved May 22, 2012.

[4] My Brother Ron: A Personal and Social History of the Deinstitutionalization of the Mentally Ill. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. 2012. ISBN 978-1477667538.

[5] "Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty". Emory University. October 25, 2002. Retrieved 26 February 2009.

[6] "The Bancroft and Bellesiles". History News Network, George Mason University. December 13, 2002. Retrieved February 26, 2009.

[7] "2008 Primary Election Results Legislative Totals". Archived from the original on May 1, 2012. Retrieved May 17, 2009.

[:2-8] Lindgren, James; Bellesiles, Michael A. (2002). "Fall from Grace: Arming America and the Bellesiles Scandal". Yale Law Journal. 111 (8). The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.: 2195. doi:10.2307/797645. JSTOR 797645. SSRN 692421.

[9] Wilson, J (Jan 2002). "The Scandal of Arming America. (Stranger in a Strange Land)". Books & Culture. 8 (1): 4–6.

[10] Hoffer, Peter Charles (2007). Past imperfect: facts, fictions, fraud, American history from Bancroft and Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis and Goodwin. History. New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-58648-445-3.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]