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 26	March 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

American Satan (franchise)

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

Fails GNG as a franchise. Not really even a franchise (1 TV show and a movie) could maybe be merged into the movie article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suppose what we need is a definition of what Wikipedia would consider to be a franchise. The Lists of multimedia franchises article requires:

In order to qualify for these lists, a franchise must have works in at least three forms of media, and must have two or more separate works in at least two of those forms of media (a television series or comic book series is considered a single work for purposes of this list; multiple spin-off series or reboots of a previously ended series are considered multiple works).

That's to be listed on the page though, so it could be argued that a franchise page might be able to get away with a little bit less. The question is how much less. This has a film, a TV show, and two soundtracks. Soundtracks strike me as something that could be counted in a franchise but are often overlooked unless the soundtrack is particularly noteworthy.

Aside from that, I suppose there's also a question if a spinoff page for the franchise is warranted for what we have so far. Offhand I'm inclined to say leave it, as it could be a good place to cover information about the soundtracks and the sequel film in one location, as opposed to weighing down the main film article. However the coverage for this is also kind of light. I'd need to search for more sourcing before making any definitive judgement. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like with the sequel film, a comic series was also announced. Neither has released yet, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sound tracks could be merged to their respective page Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's still that question to answer: what is the bare minimum needed to justify a franchise article on Wikipedia and does announced content qualify? Part of the issue here is that the film article would end up doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to anything dealing with the series (films, comic, soundtracks, TV show), even with the TV show having its own article. It's not completely unreasonable for this to have its own article as a spinoff - I'm not saying that it should have one, just that it's not as cut and dry as if it were only the film and movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does it matter whether or not the film was terrible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. -Mushy Yank. 11:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Merge or just Delete in part due to comments by OlifanofmrTennant and ReaderofthePack. There are some undeniable "franchises" in movie history. First,, every subject does not need a seperate article. While Wikipedia was growing, all subjects were fair game for an article. It did not matter if there was a parent article that could really use added content and sources. "Let's create a new wannabe dictionary entry or BLP resume and show the world there is a place for Wikipedia. Now that we are around the 7,000,000 article range, quality over quantity has started taking hold.

"Flop or bomb": Many times, the movie industry, more especially the media, does not differentiate between a movie "Flop" and a "Bomb" yet there is a clear distinction. Wikipedia tends to combines the two words. Some movies are released with studio expectations (large production costs, a stellar cast and writer, producer, as well as cost and heavy advertising) of making a franchise.

"A bomb": John Carter is one example of many. At around a 200 to 307 million dollar loss Disney forgot they made it. A bomb is not only a commercial failure, critics pan it, and the public just does not take notice. The ship sinks. Maybe it was released at the time (bad timing) of a clear box office success. The media can make a bomb very notable.

"A flop": can end up making money, maybe a going to video, maybe a decision to make a sequel. All of a sudden, acceptance explodes, toys are made and sold, sequels, prequels, more books (and toys), and there is no question of the term franchise. Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Jaws (movie), Psycho (movie), Free Willey, Mission Impossible, among a very long list.

Franchise: If the media uses the term franchise -- we have a winner. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to create a franchise. If there is questionable notability (WP:GNG), "seems likely" to be notable, there is otherwise uncertainty, don't make the article or merge content ("ATD") to a parent or sibling article. There does not need to be a "bare minimum" notability. If there is a franchise, we can call it that. If it "may be" too soon (not in pre-production or filming--bla-bla), lag behind the public and the media. It is, or it isn't, right? -- Otr500 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some weak nods here and there to a franchise. There's this mention that Avildsen planned back in 2017 to create a whole franchise that would include a TV series. Lambgoat calls it a franchise here. Not much else other than that, though.

As far as every page having an entry, I admittedly do prefer having fewer pages rather than more. Personally I'm the type to recommend a franchise or series page as opposed to individual pages for films and whatnot, although that's not really an option here since the film and TV series seem to be independently notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Running from the Dreamland

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

I do not believe this novel meets WP:NBOOK. It is a self-published book whose author had a wiki article that was recently deleted due to "No compelling keep arguments, LLMs, one-edit accounts, highly dodgy sourcing, and some of the most blatant COI promotion I've seen on Wikipedia for a long time" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulasi Acharya). This article appears to suffer from many of the same issues, and I will post a full source analysis in the comments below.

Also see the previous AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) for this novel's Nepali translation. Astaire (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Education, and Nepal. Astaire (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Going through the list of sources currently in the article:

Source 1: The author's master's degree thesis. Not independent of the book.
Source 2: This is setting off major red flags. The byline is not a person, but just "TRN Online". The writing is terrible and nearly incomprehensible at times. Sample sentence: Deepak changes is flat time and again to stay with comfort- sometime with Nepali as well. The article is almost entirely a plot summary and does not critically review the book.
Source 3: This review is by Kay Traille, an academic who recently coauthored a book with the author [1]. They also appear to have taught a course together at Kathmandu University [2]. Not independent coverage.
Source 4: This article is the closest to being a qualifying source under NBOOK, as it provides some critical analysis and isn't uniformly positive. However, the review's author Mahesh Paudyal appears to have been a previous acquaintance of the book's author: see e.g. this Facebook post, which is from 2019 (the review is from 2020).
Source 5: This review is entirely positive and ridiculously over-the-top. It contains quotations like I am delighted to recommend this book to my dear ones, and I feel a sense of pride in doing so. and Acharya's writing is beautifully beautiful. What's more, the review's author Kunal Acharya has the same last name as the author, and the author's social media posts like [3] and [4] mention someone named Kunal Acharya. Highly dubious.
Source 6: a review of the novel in BookLife, which is a paid review service from Publishers Weekly (see e.g. [5], [6]). Paid reviews are not independent.
Source 7: A republication of Kay Traille's review in another outlet. Doesn't count as another review and still not independent coverage.
Source 8: This is just a published version of the BookLife review in Source 6 above.
Finally, the article quotes a review from Anthony Grooms, using the book's Amazon page as the source. I cannot find this review online and suspect it is just a marketing blurb, which is not independent.

Given these massive sourcing issues and the problems with the author's article, this article has a higher burden of proof to meet NBOOK, and it does not at present meet it. It should be deleted. Astaire (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found nothing other than a listing in PW, and the mentioned paid review in PW above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Boyer

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

Non-notable. Could not find any sources to back notability criteria.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Academics, Music. Maineartists (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources used in the article are only confirmation from various universities, not really extensive. I can't find anything extra to use, these same sources are the only ones that turn up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Software

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 google news hit. The first source appears dead, 2nd source doesn't link to anything. 3rd source doesn't even mention this company. 4th and 5th sources are generic and don't refer to company. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that this fails WP:CORP guidelines. I Will note that searching for the topic is difficult due to search collisions with Raspberry Pi software, and someone who knows more about the company may be able to perform a more successful search. Most information I can find comes from the company's website itself. Apparently they write ticketing ID software for railroads these days. News coverage that I found is generic business news noting investments/partnerships/mergers. Other sources are filings with the UK government.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loni Rose

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage outside being mentioned in obituaries, this does not meet notability for singers. Independent releases rarely get media coverage, but we have no critical discussion, no charted singles, nothing that hints at musical notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Unless it's your obituary, it doesn't matter for your notability. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe she meets WP:MUSICBIO#10, with her songs (and her singing) featured in films like American Pie and Love Wrecked, and on multiple TV shows including Road Rules. I have added info and sources, and deleted some inappropriate sources like Amazon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to one of the additional reliable sources added to the article Loni Rose has had twenty songs placed in films and tv including some big hit films so she does pass WP:NMUSIC in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Atlantic306. Subject meets WP:NMUSIC. RolandSimon (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NMUSICIAN criterion 10 due to the frequent film and TV use of her songs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:51, 27 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!} 22:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victory's Short

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

Promo for non notable short film. Lacks independent coverage, no sign of any reviews. Being screened does not satisfy NFILM. Wanky promotional writing. One of multiple promo pieces largely created by the films production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Film was released, then appears to have been forgotten about. There is no sourcing that i find since the release date, no reviews other than Imdb synopsis and the trailer on Youtube. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. Skynxnex (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mika'ela Fisher. Kind of wild that this can show at Cannes but gain no coverage, but that's kind of the way short films tend to work. They almost never gain any sort of coverage that could establish notability and when they do, it's rarely enough to pass NFILM. It doesn't look like this screened in any of the submission areas that would give notability on that end alone (ie, Un Certain Regard) and the award doesn't look to be major enough to give notability on that alone. It also didn't win, making that a moot point anyway. I think we could probably just redirect this to the director's page, where it's listed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we consider Mika'ela Fisher notable? If so, redirect to her page, maybe?-Mushy Yank. 09:41, 27 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!} 22:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Sinai South Nassau

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [7][8] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. It is also without a doubt an organization, which WP:NCORP concerns. Aneirinn (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article even refers to what the hospital complex was before Mount Sinai took over. The article is clearly about the complex. SportingFlyer T·C 00:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCORP even explicitly states "This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc." Aneirinn (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well we also have WP:NBUILDING, which simply requires WP:GNG. Considering this is clearly an article on the building and not on the business, since it covers the building throughout its organisational history including as a former independent hospital, we don't need to apply the higher standard. I can't access historical American newspapers at the moment, but I bet it should be easy to find coverage from 1928. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kahoe

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

Article on an individual that ~~appears to have~~ might have played a single season of professional lacrosse, though it isn't clear he actually ever played. Sourcing is all either non-independent profiles or statistical outlines, with one local news outlet on his transfer from Syracuse to Georgetown. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This in-depth story in The Philadelphia Inquirer along with this and this from Syracuse.com is probably sufficient for GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I think those sources are fairly Run-of-the-Mill coverage. Local newspapers also cover high school and college athletes, in every city and town, there are several high schools and colleges and papers that cover them; inevitably, these athletes will receive coverage.

The Inquirer and the Syracuse.com are both major news outlets, but they also serve as local news, which does make this a little less cut and dry than it otherwise would be. All of these sources, though, are simply profiles of a local high school (in the case of the Inquirer), or collegiate (in the case of the Syracuse.com sources) athlete, without much of a context outside of local interest. A quick perusal of both shows that these sorts of profiles happen daily, sometimes multiple times daily. Using these three sources to establish notability would mean that there are quite literally thousands of similar cases where non-notable high school or collegiate athletes would now meet the notability threshold for an article, just based on coverage in the Inquirer and Syracuse.com.

Finally, to quote the WP:ATHLETE guideline: The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level. In this case, the subject appears to have only played a single season of professional lacrosse, with almost no coverage of this beyond a stats page. The coverage on his participation in a collegiate championship is limited to a single page commenting on his social media posts. nf utvol (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ROTM is an essay; whether there's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" is all that matters here. And in this case, he does meet that, with in-depth stories in The Inquirer and Syracuse.com. The significant coverage on the subject does not need to be regarding something that you subjectively deem of greater than "local interest" in order to count as significant coverage. You say that this would allow for "quite literally thousands of similar cases where non-notable high school or collegiate athletes would now meet the notability threshold for an article" – however, the difference here is that the subject also competed professionally at, what I believe is, the highest-level of lacrosse (i.e. he's not just some random local college player like you're making him out to be). Lastly, the ATHLETE "guidelines" are just a garbled mess that few still rely on. Note that NSPORT includes nothing talking about lacrosse, thus even the greatest lacrosse player of all time would still fail it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a little more digging it isn't clear that Kahoe ever actually played a regular season game of professional soccer. According to the stats page linked in the article, he was drafted by the Boston Blazers in 2009 but never played a game. Then, according to Lacrosse All Stars (which I'm not sure is a RS anyway), he was drafted by the Florida Launch in 2013, but I can't find anything at all that indicates he ever played a single game with them beyond playing on their practice squad in 2017. This, in my view, means that whatever time he may have spent in MLL/PLL/NLL does not serve to add to his notability. nf utvol (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if he never played in the MLL/PLL/NLL, that makes the case weaker, though he still arguably meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Churches of Capitol Hill (Nashville)

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

This essay fails WP:GNG because it is WP:OR on the topic of the Black churches of Nashville's Capitol Hill neighborhood. The only source that addresses these churches as a group is the WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable Historical Marker Database. (Several if not all of them would be independently notable, but there's no coverage of these churches as a group.) In this article, and in my BEFORE search, all the other sources address the individual churches, not the churches as a group. The article also fails the WP:NOT test of GNG by being an essay, and separate from its notability challenges is poorly formatted and included several copyvios. A note on the procedural history here: I hate to bring this page to AfD since it was created as part of a WikiEdu class. I found it in mainspace with sandbox templates and initially draftified it to give the creator or others time to improve it, and a WikiEdu staffer later moved it to userspace. The page creator appears to have moved it back to mainspace, leaving no option but AfD since this page is still nowhere near ready for mainspace and it does not meet any notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Christianity, and Tennessee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 20 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!} 22:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azawad conflict

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

I think this article is useless. Everything about the conflict in Azawad is perfectly summarized in Mali War and Tuareg rebellion (2012) articles. Plus, this article has many errors and is lacking citations for decade. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This article can probably be merged into Mali War, but "I think this article is useless" is not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion as it is not a part of deletion policy. Content issues can be highlighted on the talk page and with the addition of maintenance tags (e.g. More citations needed, Disputed). A merge proposal should have been considered first. Yue🌙 23:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tuareg rebellion (2012). Duplicate article on the same conflict. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two separate Merge target article suggestions and XFDcloser only allows one. Which one is preferable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ve Plus TV

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

Article should be merged with Cisneros Media. Does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article Variety312 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 21 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!} 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge agree, it's a 19 year old article with no references. The parent company only has a passing mention of the channel on it's website at [[9]]. Google news search for 'veplus Cisneros Media' gives two results, neither would be considered significant coverage of the article's subject. A newsbank search for the same search term returns 5 results which appear to be new show annoucements and partnerships, rather than in-depth coverage about the child company. It doesn't seem to warrant it's own article at all.

Ohq

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and Ohq is mentioned in passing. No significant achievements in tier-one leagues or tournaments during his career. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and South Korea. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There is no clear consensus that WP:NSPORT covers esports players and there is much routine coverage per nom. However, the ESPN story [10] and (likely) this Red Bull article [11] supports WP:SPORTCRIT which are reliable per WP:VG/RS. Esports Edition [12], unsure about its reliability. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the coverage in those articles (at least the two that are not permanently dead) is significant. The most substantial is the ESPN article, but "a South Korean player is having difficulties adjusting to American life after joining an American team" is hardly the headliner article to establish standalone notability (i.e. apart from NRG Esports). Yue🌙 21:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video portal

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

Low-quality duplicate of Online video platform with only 1 blog source. yutsi (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. yutsi (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Online video platform per nom. Gracen (they/them) 21:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Blank and redirect as previous editors have stated. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep How about instead, we expand the article and find the sources about Video Portal. In 2020s, the article was expanded to include Artificial Intelligence. But, this article is much older, since it was created in 2008. 2600:1700:78EA:450:A97F:DB14:6A5B:DD28 (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Being a stub does not make it a bad article. 2600:387:F:4B11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not just a stub, it is an essentially unsourced duplicate of an already existing article. Gracen (they/them) 20:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No genuine coverage at all. single source that too insignificant. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It began as a Spanish article, untranslated, that undoubtedly the same person added to the Spanish Wikipedia at the same time. (The Spanish Wikipedia has largely not noticed es:Portal de videos, it seems. This article actually began its life at Portales de video.) It was then translated into English, to reveal that it was actually supposed to be titled online video, the heading and the text of the Spanish explicitly saying video en línea. Ironically, we had had online video for 2 years at that point. (It redirecting to video clip, which was where short-form content was at the time.) But this foreign language duplicate was renamed to a name not in the text instead of being handled as a duplicate of the name that was in the text.
It remained about the subject of online video, with a single jammed-in sentence that tried to make it about something else, for 15 years until the sockpuppetteer EnjoyBrowser557 (talk · contribs) expanded it based upon an advertisement.
There really isn't anything useful here. The foreign language duplicate article is woefully outdated (future expectations of Adobe Flash Player!) and useless now, 17 years later, and should not have been dealt with like this in the first place. And the sockpuppetteer's contributions are clearly in bad faith. I have my suspicions based on contributions histories, about the IP address contributions to this discussion, as well.
Some quick research indicates that the world stopped calling YouTube et al. "video portals" in the 2010s. Since the English Wikipedia now calls them online video platforms, that seems like the best redirect to take readers to what this older name was talking about at the time.
Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry M. Londelius Jr.

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

Non-notable architect who's 5 minutes is that he may (or may not) have designed the house used in the The Brady Brunch. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. At most deserves a mention on the TV show page in the discussion regarding the house, and he's already mentioned there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only pull up the street name source [13], which seems to be the best source. It's not nearly enough. I don't find any other sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tapuah Junction shooting

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien hello, im not familiar with the English Wikipedia article deletion policy, so i would be happy if you would be able to explain to me why 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, and 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing considered notable enough for an article, and this article isn't. There an important detail that i didn't mention in the article cause i didn't found source in English for this particular claim but there a lot of Hebrew sources. This detail is the fact that the settlement of Evyatar was re-establish be Israeli settlers as "response" for this attack.Benbaruch (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone would have to look at those articles, but it's possible they aren't notable either. Articles about events on the English Wikipedia require sustained coverage beyond the initial reporting of the event. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thebiguglyalien, i understand, but what do think about the fact that a large output that currently being regulated by the Israeli government, was re-establish as "response" for this attack, don't you think that this fact makes the article about the attack notable enough? Benbaruch (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was the attack. Following that there was a manhunt which got coverage including his wife being arrested. He had a trial which got additional coverage. Then Israel military demolished his family home, which got coverage including the US State Department condemning it (a rare event).

The article needs work and additional sources, but I do think this incident and it's aftermath got sustained notice both within Israel but also around the globe. Searching using the name of the perpetrator is a good place to start for additional sources[14] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Under scholarly sources, I found one book which doesn't just have a mention of the attack but also discuss clashes and violence in response to Israel engaging in the manhunt[15] Bob drobbs (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Second the opinion of Bob drobbs. There is ample news coverage of the attack, manhunt, trial result, and aftermath with the destruction of the perpetrator's home. The state department issuing a rebuke to Israel is enough to confer notability to this event in my opinion (seriously the US state department is usually pretty chill about the bombing of civilians overseas).

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Az-Za'ayyem checkpoint shooting

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

No secondary coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability here. I wouldn't object if there was an appropriate place to add it to a list somewhere, but it doesn't merit an article. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The news reports are primary sources, reporting of the incident. As we have no secondary sources at all, this fails WP:GNG. Thus it fails WP:N on the first limb, but also it fails on the second, as Wikipedia is Not a newspaper. As that fails under the WP:NOT policy it does not meet WP:N at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly any sourcing about the event that I find, only a reddit post. What's now used for sourcing is confirmation of the event as it happened, nothing since. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Man Power Trip

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

WWF team lasting less than two months. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Styles and Christopher Daniels

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

TNA team lasting just six months with very short title reigns. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Cal Cunningham

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

Politician who has only competed in two general elections. All information can easily be merged to the main article. Article also relies almost entirely on primary sources. मल्ल (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and North Carolina. मल्ल (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect Very easy blank and redirect to me. Information is largely available on the main article for Cal Cunningham already. Tables and very specific electoral details aren't really necessary on main page and interested parties can go to more detailed sources for such information.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 New York's 21st congressional district special election

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

I'm fairly confident this page should be deleted, the special election won't actually be held, but I'm not what the best course of action is here. Not sure if a redirect would be better or just a straight deletion. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and New York. ミラP@Miraclepine 20:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creation this article before Stefanik's resignation was probably a mistake and perhaps we need to have a policy that an election needs to be called before an article can be created. This article, and 2025 Texas's 18th congressional district special election, may take us into crystal ball territory.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should avoid creating pages in cases like Stefanik's where we do not know if and when said person will actually resign. As for this article, I do think that the it should be deleted, but I'm not sure what should be done with the information that currently exists on the page.

However, in the case of TX-18, I do think that when a Representative passes, we should expect a special election to take place within the next year. It may be crystal balling a bit, but it's also a good place to put the information for what is widely expected to occur. AG202 (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Maybe I'm letting my biases get in the way, but Abbot has no statutory deadline to call a special election and I would not be shocked if he simply never does so. It was more a musing on my part. I have no plans to do anything to the TX-18 article.
I don't think TX-18 is crystal balling, because unless an official vacancy occurs close enough (often 60-90 days) to a general election a special election doesn't need to occur, one must occur. Atriskofmistake (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a crystal ball issue, because reliable sources do report on the upcoming elections almost immediately. This should probably redirect somewhere (Stefanik's article, maybe?) explaining what happened. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elise_Stefanik#Nomination_as_U.S._ambassador_to_the_United_Nations, especially if we think this would be a useful search term in the next couple of weeks. Long term, this term should be deleted. --Enos733 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to to Elise Stefanik#Nomination as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and/or 2025 United States House of Representatives elections. This is a tough one. This standalone page certainly can't be preserved, because the election won't happen. But there is a lot of thoroughly sourced information here. I've created a new section on the 2025 House page and moved over some of the content. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 United States House of Representatives elections. A short explanation on that page would be useful, but the level of detail on the current page is not needed. BruceThomson (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Ramon Horta AG7

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

I've searched for sources, and found none, except one that says who Antonio Ramon Horta was (whose publisher I'm uncertain about, and which does not mention the school itself). I've no objection if someone wants to WP:MERGE this to Forest siege instead, but at present, I can find no sources that mention the name of this short-lived school. As a closed school, I don't think it meets the WP:List selection criteria for List of medical schools in the Caribbean, and adding it to List of colleges and universities in Cuba would be best if we had a solid source to add with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Cuba. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Simone Biles gymnastics season

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

A singlular season for a gymnast who has no other season articles. This is not common practice at WikiProject Gymnastics. Not sure why previous PROD was contested, it has a number of individuals on talk page questioning why it exists. All information already exists on Simone Biles main page. GauchoDude (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Conservation Nepal

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

lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic entry Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Environment, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came into thinking about !voting redirect to List of Birdlife Partners, but I've found several sources which discuss this particular organization in detail enough for WP:NORG. Their vulture program[16][17][18] and birding app[19][20] in particular both got international attention, and I've incorporated that information into the article. There's a lot of passing mentions in scholar sources, due the amount of data BCN produces on Nepalese bird populations, so I'm still filtering through those to see if there's anything in academia about them (given the coverage so far, I strongly suspect there might be - absolutely there's some in connection with the Indian vulture crisis). But anyways, I've rewritten the article and the new sources in it should demonstrate how it passes WP:GNG and NORG. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 21:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: article has been greatly improved since nomination and passes NORG. मल्ल (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Big improvement in content and sourcing since this was first listed here. — Maile (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Testament

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

Short-lived team with no significant achievements. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The achievements are not really a must for an article to exist. However, I would vote Soft delete. The stable just was active for 1 year and most part of the sources are WP:ROUTINE results, with no in-deep focus on the stable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a second though, I will support a redirect to Karrios Kross too. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karrion Kross#Return to WWE (2022–present). They had some TV and special episode appearances. The stable was 1-year career of Karrion Kross, Scarlett Bordeaux, Paul Ellering, and Authors of Pain. So a redirect and summary of the stable would be helpful for the readers who search for The Final Testament and related info about the stable. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Livebarn

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business, annoucements, mergers news. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly nominated out of WP:REVENGE Delectopierre (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know revenge. Its too expensive. We will go the references in the next few days. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right... Delectopierre (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a news story whenever a locale purchases Livebarn. This is not WP:ROUTINE procurement coverage, nor is it WP:CORPTRIV. [21] [22] [23][24] Longhornsg (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No its press-release that are being reported locally. Nothing that passes WP:SIRS We will go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to this, it self evidently passes WP:NCORP. This AfD wastes everyone's time.

Delectopierre (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a variety of reliable sources have been posted.yutsi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine these references here and in the article. I'll look at these first:

Ref 1 [25] That is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS
Ref 2 [26] "The company describes itself on its website as being a provider of live and on-demand video of amateur and youth sporting events from more than 1,000 facilities" That is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 3 [27] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 4 [28] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [29] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
Ref 5 [30] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV

Looking at the references:

Ref 1 Its above.
Ref 2 Its above.
Ref 5 [31] "LiveBarn and OMHA Announce New Video Streaming Partnership". Routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 6 [32] This has taken from a ceo interview. It fails WP:SIRS as its not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Ref 7 Another annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release.
Ref 9 [33] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.

In fact not a single one of these references satisfy WP:NCORP. They fails WP:SIRS,WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources. Additionally, even if all of those were simply announcements of partnerships (they aren't) WP:CORPTRIV says absolutely nothing about partnerships being trivial mentions. Delectopierre (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PR for non notable company. Scope Creeps analysis looks honest and accurate to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC):[reply]

Describing a CBC article titled Eye in the sky: How streaming of local hockey has changed the game that is quite literally about Livebarn and HomeTeam Live (a competitor of Livebarn's) as a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS is honest and accurate?

How about cherry picking a single sentence in that article that correctly the company's description to their website, and therefore discounting the CBC as not independent?

How about a NYT/Athletic article titled Drew Bannister’s path to the Blues: Family sacrifice, LiveBarn bonding and the coach behind the coach as a routine annoucement of partnership?

Shall I keep going? Delectopierre (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't start WP:BLUDGEONING other editors because you don't like their !votes. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eye in the sky is about streaming services in general and just uses those two as examples, making passing mentions of both.

The extent of coverage about Livebarn itself in that second article was taken from Livebarn themselves. That lacks independence.

NYT/Athletic Just mentions he watched games on Livebarn. Passing mention, No depth of coverage. Yes it does look like Scope characterised that one incorrectly but it's still trivial.

How about "Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release." Yes, honest and accurate. Found on business wire. Reads like a press release. Complete with contacts for both companies. Ends wi5th about sections on both. Obviously a press release.

How about "Ref 9 [13] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent." Yes, honest and accurate. Entire mention is "These investments included a recent $14 million investment in LiveBarn, ..." Clearly just a passing mention of an Investment in livebarn from the investor. Just a passing mention means it fails on point one of SIRS. Being from the investor means it fails point 2 of SIRS.

Those two show your pronouncement that "In actual fact, not a single one of your pronouncements is an honest or accurate representation of the sources." is not honest or accurate.

And how about The Albertan: "the Sundre Minor Hockey Association was pleased to announce the local launch of a LiveBarn service." Sounds like an announcement to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economy, Society, & History

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

No reviews to pass WP:NBOOK. Quotes so extensively from the book I am fairly certain it is a copyright issue at this point. Redirect to author Hans-Hermann Hoppe? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Oof. That's a lot of quotes. I'd say that about half to 2/3 of the article are quotes so it definitely poses a copyright issue. The quote usage goes well beyond fair use at that point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bulk of the synopsis section to deal with the quotes. Some of the content also looks to be kind of original research as well, which would also pose an issue. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. I wasn't able to find coverage to show where this passes NBOOK. Normally I'd recommend a redirect with history, but the sheer amount of quotations does pose a bit of a copyright issue, particularly as I can't see where any of this was released under a compatible copyright that would allow that level of quoting on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to those that cleaned up the article and made it shorter and more manageable. Given the available sources, it passes for at least a stub-type article as GNG. The quotes also did appear to have COPYVIO issues, which are now resolved. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And while this exists too, [34]https://mises.org/mises-wire/review-economy-society-and-history, bear in mind that for any counter claim that this is not independent, "Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.", and also for notability, "Economy, Society, and History is a major work, allowing readers to benefit from Hoppe’s insights into a number of areas he has not addressed in other books." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn MISES is generally unreliable, independence is not the concern. See past WP:RSN discussions. We still only have one source, not enough for GNG or NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I checked the perennial list and I did not find it there. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn It's not on RSP but search "MISES" in the noticeboard archives. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent discussion there on the reliablity of that source is almost 5 years old, and for purposes of mere notability of a book should, this should suffice. Had we been trying to justify a contentious or controversial claim, then firstly, it might be helpful to have a renewed discussion or RfC on the source, but secondly, we are not validating any fringe claims here so that is not pertinent to the most salient concern which is that of the notability of a stub book article. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s still not good enough to count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets the norm for books. And respectfully, the arguments against that particular source being suitable are creations of an editor, not Wikipedia standards. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 How, exactly? MISES being a fringe publication does not magically stop at their book reviews. We only have one reliable source! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if for the sake of the discussion one accepts that MISES is reliable, as the publisher of the book, claims it makes about the text cannot be considered *independent* for the purposes of determining notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only identify a single review (from the Polish political studies journal Athenaeum) that can be considered independent - which is central to the criteria for determining notability under WP:NBOOK: The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. All other sources are linked to the publisher, the author or from self-published blogs. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find only one presumably independent book review, the Athenaeum Polskie Studia Politologiczne one that was recently added. The HansHoppe.com is obviously not independent and the LewRockwell site is one person's site (Lew Rockwell - see the "About"). It seems odd that this book is not mentioned in the text of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe article, only in a list of publications. From that I conclude that this is not his magnum opus. It also does not reach NBOOK. Lamona (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to clear the notability bar for a book. Maybe the content could be reduced in certain places, but it warrants keeping overall with a lower word count, based on references like this one: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384617317_Libertarianism_Beyond_Economism_On_Hans-Hermann_Hoppe's_Economy_Society_and_History_Hans-Hermann_Hoppe_2021_Economy_Society_and_History_Auburn_Mises_Institute_pp_210 (and others) Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is not clear because we need two reviews and have one. There are no other reliable reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The linked article on researchgate is the already mentioned review from Athenaeum, leaving aside the unreliable source nature, this has already been considered. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hans-Hermann Hoppe: I'm only seeing the one reliable source review so I don't see a WP:NBOOK pass. But as an AtD, it would be fitting to redirect to the author's article since it is a potential search term. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to the proposal as a redirect, a Google Books search of "Economy Society & History" (specifically using an ampersand) turns up texts like "Navigating History: Economy, Society, Knowledge, and Nature" (2018), "The Medieval Economy and Society: An Economic History of Britain, 1100-1500" (1973) and "War, Economy and Society, 1939-1945" (1979). There's nothing on the first three pages of the search related to Hoppe. A general Google search unsurprisingly turns up Wikipedia first, the MISES website and Amazon, but the next hits are Weber's Economy and Society and peer review journal called Society & Economy. I don't think there's strong enough reason to assume that Hoppe is the most appropriate target (WP:RPURPOSE); the text appears very minor at best. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i would still support a redirect (though due to content issues it should be deleted first) because AFAIK there is no other published work with this name - a similar name, but not the same exact one. The term is vague but this is still the only thing with this specific title. That the phrase is generic does not counteract that PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pure deletion not a hill I need to die on. :) Fair suggestion about delete then redirect. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azriddin Rosli

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 480 minutes in the highest Malaysian league. Article creator is blocked indefinitely.

PROD was BLARed (blanked and redirected), but I hereby contest the redirect to Kuching City since he is no longer with that club. The article 2024–25 Malaysia A1 Semi-Pro League shows us that Rosli now plays there. On 22 February he scored for Persada Integriti Bersatu, who won in front of an attendance of 20. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kew

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

I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Suonii180 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and England. Suonii180 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Shrestha

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

In Special:Diff/1255412434 an IP vandal partially WP:AHIJACKed this page through a change of the birth date of possibly another Roshan Shrestha, and following that, the substitution of "Gyan Bahadur Pradhan" with "ROSU".

The underlying, ostensibly single and real subject is the non-notable actor born as it may be in 1980, ~~whose real name may be Gyan Bahadur Pradhan~~ (no, that appears to be yet another individual, as explained below), and who started his modeling career reportedly in 2003. This subject fails WP:GNG through a lack of significant coverage, and fails WP:ANYBIO, as none of the criteria are met (the supposed awards are non-notable and the information on the awards is difficult or impossible to verify using reliable sources in the first place). The subject also fails WP:NACTOR, because the films aren't notable; two of the films are direct-to-YouTube productions:[35][36], and Hero Returns is this, possibly a less obscure but also non-notable film; I am unable to identify "Kapura". Some of the sources are about the films, not about the actor, but the films fail WP:NFILM, as the coverage is not significant, and for other reasons specific to NFILM.

I wasn't able to find anything in my WP:BEFORE search. —Alalch E. 15:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nepal. —Alalch E. 15:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from the IP "born in 2004" hijack, the article was also partially hijacked by adding information about Rohan Shrestha (this individual; more), who is neither Roshan Shrestha nor the ostensible "ROSU" entity. This was resolved in Special:Diff/1282622039.—Alalch E. 16:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search efforts led to a similar conclusion as Allah E.'s. There is no significant coverage of the subject or his projects that would be needed for WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Instead of repeating all that was already said in the nomination, I'll add a few findings that may aid others in further search or prevent them from going down the rabbit holes I did, (1) the subject is distinct from the photographer Rohan Shreshta; (2) he is also distinct from "Gyan Bahadur Pradhan", aka Roshan, who produced the film Yo Man Ta Mero Nepali Ho to be released July 2025, in which the subject is an actor; (3) in his Facebook page the subject mainly talks about himself as a choreographer, rather than actor or model. Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this page has at various times (and during a period of time concurrently) included information about four individuals: (1) Roshan Shrestha, actor; (2) Gyan Bahadur Pradhan, aka Roshan, producer; (3) Rohan Shrestha, photographer; (4) the ostensible "born in 2004" entity about whom we can suspect is a younger individual named Roshan Shrestha who hijacked the page. —Alalch E. 17:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope we get some input from editors who can read the language of most of the sources (Nepali?) to sort this out. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I hope we can get some feedback from Endrabcwizart who is the experienced editor who created this article. As they live in Nepal, I'm sure they can help with the sources since the likely located most of them and they could help us sort through what has happened with this article over the past year. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caught in the Night

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

The album page was twice redirected to the artist's because of lack of notability, and reverted without any additional relevant sources being added. Bringing it here to reach consensus. I propose a Redirect to Luna (Polish singer) Broc (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Poland. Broc (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yongchang Real Estate

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

I wasn't able to find much significant coverage in English, or anything that would demonstrate notability as a company. There may be coverage in Chinese-language sources, but I admit having trouble conducting a WP:BEFORE for Chinese sources. Mooonswimmer 13:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 KCA President's Cup T20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KCA President's Cup T20.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zheng Guangzhao

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

Does not meet GNG, and this person's positions fail to meet NPOL criteria either Cinder painter (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and China. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMI Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Raipur

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

Lacks Notability for a company/ Organisation Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added more news citations. Satipem (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check now? Satipem (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've already added more citations about news. Satipem (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to satisfy WP's GNG criteria for this hospital. See [37], [38], [39], [40]. AndySailz (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the new sources will be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omnissa

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

not notable software (WP Product) Insillaciv (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Omnissa is the new name for what was a whole EUC division of VMware. There are wiki pages for the two main products of VMware Horizon (which should now be called Omnissa Horizon) and AirWatch (which should be called 'Omnissa Workspace ONE') MrTAP (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently configured, no notability has been established. The two references are press releases by the Omnissa and its new owner, KKR. They are not independent of the subject of the article and therefore shouldn't even be used as references. If this products lasts and gets independent coverage in reliable sources, it could merit an article, but not yet. Ira Leviton (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will add additional references, but had only just started. Please note that both product wiki articles have existed for many years - they had just referred to the new company name but only linked to the old company name. MrTAP (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have added references to two news articles on 'The Register' and 'TechTarget' regarding Omnissa being spun out of VMware. MrTAP (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete added sources are not reliable enough. However, if someone add new ones I may change my mind. Still think some sources may exist. Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with VMware#Acquisition by Broadcom: Not quite enough coverage for a standalone article - I'm specifically concerned about the reliability of the TechTarget source, which is an opinion piece. Merging to its former parent company seems like the most natural solution. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Whelihan's

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

An ip user put this up for AfD, I am just relisting it for them. The same user also put an AfD on P.J.W. Restaurant Group. I think any information in this page can be on the other page instead. I haven't decided if that one should be deleted yet or not though. Doing the searches I just saw the bog standard promotional news of "new restaurant opening" etc. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks to Moritoriko for creating this AFD. My intention had been to nominate both together, but they should be okay as separate AFDs. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:15, 17 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 12:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the page has very few sources that actually discuss it, and relies too heavily on primary sources. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Elliott (barrister)

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

The person doesn't pass WP Anybio. All the sources are not of really depth coverage, and his overall achievements are not making him to be eligible in terms of GNG. Insillaciv (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it comfortably passes wikipedia:ANYBIO. Being president of the Bar Association is equivalent to winning a major award. Having an entry in the Who is who legal is equivalent to being in a national dictionary. Schwede 66 16:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - because it meets general notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - presidency of a large bar association is a high honor. I'd probably exclude the President of the Schenectady County Bar Association and of the Delaware Bar Association, but a national or large state association is almost always a full-time job in itself, and considered a very high honor in the legal profession. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how GNG is met, none of the sources in the article are independent SIGCOV. I also don't see how ANYBIO is met even if you stretch the definition of 'award' to include serving as a president of an organisation. The criteria for ANYBIO is 'The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times' perhaps serving as the president of the New Zealand Bar Association is a significant role, but it certainly is not a well-known one. I for one couldn't tell you who the president was prior to this. I don't see any news articles talking about the selection of any new president for the bar association, which suggests it isn't exactly a well-known nor significant role. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 13:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ausar Auset Society

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paganism and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While I did find mentions of the Ausar Auset Society in quite a few scholarly sources, they were exclusively trivial ones that mentioned it as an example of Black / African spiritualism, new religious movements or cults. In-depth coverage is limited to publications by the Ausar Auset Society itself or adjacent organisations. Yue🌙 23:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the chapter devoted to this in a Routledge book and the Encyclopedia source are enough. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [41] [42] [43].

This group appears in basically every significant NRM encyclopedia - quite absurd for us not to have it! PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Johansson

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

Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists. There needs to be coverage about them or their work. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only sources are database-type, and can't find anything that should qualify on my own searches Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Lai in Chains

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

Promo for non notable sign. Lacks independent coverage about the sign itself. Gets mentioned or pictured in coverage about protests around the detention of Jimmy Lai but no real indepth coverage of the sign itself in independent reliable sources. Soapbox for a cause. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah

AfDs for this article:

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

Was soft-deleted through AfD last year, and then restored after the soft delete was contested. No improvements were made to the article, and the original nom's rationale, "Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either." still holds true. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Pakistan. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Scheybeler

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a designer, and have added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. Redirect to Rapha (sportswear) is a possibility. Tacyarg (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Sports, England, and Massachusetts. Tacyarg (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, nothing to suggest independant notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bencasso Barnes

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this BLP on a musician, and am not seeing significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; I have not found any references to add. The existing sources are primary or interviews, and a press release. The Bash looks like a platform for musicians to advertise on. The "alternativetentacles" reference is to the record company's website. The mention of Barnes in the Fischoff competition docuyment just says "Benjamin Barnes, 21, Viola". The other reference for the Quartetto Rilke doesn't mention Barnes. The grant documentation is a quote from him, and a primary source. The missionlocal reference is decent coverage, but another interview. The mayoral paperwork just lists his name as a candidate. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NARTIST or WP:NSUBPOL. Redirect to Deadweight (band) is a possibility, per WP:BANDMEMBER. Tacyarg (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Politicians, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristiaan Yeo

AfDs for this article:

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

Insufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources aside from WP:Interviews. See also Special:Diff/1282547801. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 11:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the subject of this article, I request its deletion. This page has been repeatedly vandalized with false and defamatory claims, in direct violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy. The vandal(s) have consistently defaced this professional biography with lie after lie, including personal attacks, false allegations, and misleading statements about my private life.

In one instance, they publicly revealed my sexual orientation without consent and falsely described my Instagram profile as ‘sexually explicit’ while linking to it — another baseless claim. Despite my previous request for evidence to support the defamatory statements, none has ever materialized. Instead, the same harmful, unsourced allegations continue to reappear.

I have attempted to address this issue through moderation efforts, but the repeated, malicious edits show that Wikipedia is being used as a platform for harassment rather than neutral, verifiable information. Given the persistent nature of this vandalism, and the fact that no meaningful, independent sources establish my notability, I strongly believe deletion is the most appropriate course of action. 92.41.51.98 (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury-Bankstown

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

This page is redundant as there is the council page for City of Canterbury-Bankstown which covers this region and is the official local government area WP:Duplicate article. All information from this page can be merged onto City of Canterbury-Bankstown which can cover both customary region and government district. Alternatively this article could be rebranded 'Inner South-West' as per the ABS region of the same name however that would then need to merge the St George region article into this page which should remain a separate article on its own. YolandaBeCool1 (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Absence of delete rationale. Thincat (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. City of Canterbury Bankstown and Canterbury-Bankstown are distinct entities as seen by the fact they don't have the same suburbs listed. They overlap but are not the same. XwycP3 (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of suburbs is entirely unsourced, and all the suburbs listed are included within the City of Canterbury-Bankstown. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content inside this article is sufficient enough to exist outside of the municipality's article. Also this customary region extends outside and in the surrounds of the municipality's boundaries. GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is any proof of that outside of Wikipedia? Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to City of Canterbury-Bankstown I don't see any sources (that I can verify) that confirm the existence of a Cantebury-Bankstown region with a different area to the City of Cantebury-Bankstown. The term 'customary region' is a made up hoax term that only brings up circular sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Will there be a Canterbury-Bankstown Express, a local newspaper, for a non-existent place? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this place be the City of Canterbury Bankstown, perchance? The newspaper's own blurb said "Canterbury and Bankstown". Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus after I closed it as Keep but was kindly asked by Goldsztajn to relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I requested Cinder painter revert their close (as keep) of this and relist, which they kindly did. I left the following message on their talk page: "On the basis of concerns over the the lack of sourcing, which was not effectively refuted, I do not see this as keep. While the discussion did not reach a consensus to delete, neither is there a consensus to keep since the assertions for keep were not strongly grounded in the existence of reliable sources." Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing any evidence that when this article was created in 2008, prior to the 2016 local government merger, that when anyone wrote about "Canterbury-Bankstown" that they were talking about anything other than the two municipalities, Canterbury and Bankstown, that were merged. I quote from the first source cited in this very article:
Canterbury and Bankstown have been linked in the twentieth century, and are often called 'Canterbury Bankstown'.
— Lawrence 1999, p. v
There's also (for another pre-merger example) Vaʻa 2001 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVaʻa2001 (help), which chapter starts off with a potted summary of the two municipalities that formed "Canterbury-Bankstown" back then.
Quite why this already-8-year-old article was not simply repurposed in 2016 when the informal Canterbury Bankstown became a legal Canterbury Bankstown, instead of growing an entirely new article about the very same two municipalities as one, is a mystery. But it's the same thing. As borne out by the only decent source in the article, ironically.
Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaʻa, Leulu Felise (2001). "Canterbury-Bankstown: Background and Socio-economic Characteristics of its Samoan Migrants". Saili Matagi: Samoan Migrants in Australia. University of the South Pacific. ISBN 9789820203259.

Mel Hamilton

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

A case of WP:BIO1E. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Wyoming. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Has coverage many years later. [44] [45][46][47][48][49] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal, but article does need a fair bit of work. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Behounek

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

Does not pass GNG. The player appears only in databases. No sport achievements, he played only in lower German tiers. FromCzech (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. FromCzech (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The player appears only in databases. This article from Hamburger Abendblatt is WP:SIGCOV. he played only in lower German tiers. After signing a professional contract with Hamburger SV,[50] he made 28 appearances in the fully professional 3. Liga and over 130 appearances in the semi-professional fourth-tier Regionalliga Nord. The Abendblatt article is not sufficient for me. Perhaps someone can dig up more? Robby.is.on (talk) 10:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The first source is decent, but in my opinion, even only one significant coverage provided on articles is still too weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per de:Jonas Behounek Govvy (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen the article in German and it really seems to have enough sources. Svartner (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, most of the sources are from his (former) clubs. Would you consider one of the sources SIGCOV? Robby.is.on (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shazalee Ramlee

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted before. Massive fail of WP:SPORTCRIT, having played only 12 minutes in Malaysia's highest league. Provided source only contains WP:PASSING mentions. I am not finding anything that goes in depth, meaning that WP:GNG is failed as well. Finally, the creator has been globally locked (though possibly by own volition?) Geschichte (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Malaysia, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of precedence in the Isle of Man

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

No sources cited, and I couldn't find any sources to cite or to verify the information Landpin (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LISTBIO. Created in 2006 with no intro as to its purpose, no sourcing. Creator User: Manxy3 has not been active since 2008. — Maile (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crowdfense

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

Typical advertising spam and not notable company that deserves to be deleted Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Vice piece cited in the article is fine, and together with this: [51] might be just enough to clear the NCORP bar. I don't think the article is ad-like at all, at least not compared to the pages for most startups that end up at AfD.WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embention Sistemas Inteligentes S.A

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

lacks sufficient notability and reliable sources, as the organization does not have significant independent coverage in reputable sources. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on promotional content Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West African Brand Excellence Award

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

lacks sufficient notability and reliable sources to substantiate its claims, as the award does not have significant independent coverage in reputable sources Xrimonciam (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – First, the name of the award is wrongly spelt. It is the "West African Brands Excellence Awards", and not "West African Brand Excellence Award". Second, some of the links are broken and/or from unreliable sources. Even those from reliable sources like the Daily Champion points to a 404 error page. However, there are other RS including Business Day, The Guardian, The Nation — one of the old guards of true West African journalism with former branches in the region with loyalty to only true journalism - with some notable editors in chief even being harrassed and charged by some African leaders who did not like they were writing about them. Historically, they are one of the doyens of true and responsible West African journalism beholden to no one. This coverage is not long but adds to the notability, and the event has been going on for years. And more on G. News. (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this results in a keep, the article should be renamed West African Brands Excellence Awards. Tamsier (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Othman Aljeda

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

this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies and general notability Xrimonciam (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Xrimonciam (talk) 07:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iraq, England, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'architecte textile

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

Promo for non notable film. Claim of "critically acclaimed" not supported by sources. Being screened and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. Wanky promotional writing. One of multiple promo pieces largely created by the films production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Fashion, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IF we consider Mika'ela Fisher notable, redirect to her page. But her notability being based on her films (almost all having a page being currently discussed at AfD), it might be best to decide that first. She certainly fails WP:NACTOR. ("She gained recognition as an actor for her role in the movie Tell No One (Ne le dis à personne)."is simply not true, or at best puffery). She received various nominations/awards (Columbus, Hof, Newport, Sonoma, Florence, New Haven), and they are certainly "well-known" festivals but are these awards/nominations sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO, that is the question? ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"). Her page needs trimming. -Mushy Yank. 09:57, 27 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!} 07:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All India Gaming Federation

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

fail NCORP; possibly hoax. every link I open leads to not related article. Insillaciv (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Insillaciv: The sources do not work, but there is some coverage about this body by those same media companies, so definitely not a hoax. Just do a google news search with the title. I didn't check them thoroughly so no vote yet. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 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!} 07:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adequate newspaper coverage for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SLC Invitational T20 League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 09:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 09:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 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!} 07:35, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Guru Nanak Through Pictures

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

Cited or listed a few times in books about Sikhism but little significant coverage. I found one review that I cannot really access but it seems a standard length academic journal review so that's one [52]. This could have something on the book but I cannot verify whether it is significant [53]. There may be more in whatever language this was originally published in but I was unable to find the original title. The source in the article mentions the book but doesn't mention what we are citing it for (that it was judged one of the best by the president - they're talking about an artist, not the book). This mentions the best thing again but is only one sentence [54] Fails WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sikhism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 20 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!} 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Who & the Daleks: The Official Story of the Films

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

Most of the sources look more like group blogs/fansites and seem to lack proper editorial review. If I am wrong about that and one or more does seem to be an RS feel free to object. Starburst is probably fine. There are unverified and strangely formatted citations to SFX magazine, but from the way they're quoted I cannot be sure if they are reviews or passing mentions. All in all idk if this passes WP:NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dr. Who & the Daleks if no further secondary sources are found. I am also not sure about a number of the sources here, but at least Starburst, SFX and Doctor Who Magazine should be fine. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah SFX and Doctor Who Magazine are RS, my issue is just I can't verify they contain sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few more occurrences and added them here, so I think this now meets the notability criteria for an article about a non-fiction book. EditEdward (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk Money

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. There is one maybe usable review here the other is a NEWSORGINDIA issue and seems sponsored. I'm not entirely sure about the other but it seems fine. From a search nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears to pass WP:NBOOK. Found two additional independent reviews from reliable sources such as this, this, and this .Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are, 1, the NDTV Profit source already in the article; 2, from Money Control; and 3, from Firstpost. Firstpost is specifically mentioned at WP:NEWSORGINDIA as sometimes doing undisclosed sponsored advertising, though it doesn't mention their book reviews. So I don't think it's any better than the NDTV Profit review that PARAYANKAA flagged as also concerning per NEWSORGINDIA. I am neutral-to-negative on both but acknowledge I am not an expert. As for Money Control, I really struggle to consider it an RS when the website is nearly inoperable with ads and it merely calls itself an "online financial platform" rather than a publication with editorial control. But I am OK with the source from IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, the journal doesn't look predatory and the review seems normal. So I still agree with PARAYANKAA that we just have one fine source. Unless someone is able to provide a strong defence of NDTV Profit or Firstpost (or turn up new sourcing), I think this is a delete. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:07, 21 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!} 07:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete Very WP:MILL money management book. Nathannah • 📮 16:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023 KP Oli Cup (cricket)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 05:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - nominator is launching several AfDs within a short timeframe, with copy-paste deletion rationale without virtually any detail. AfD nominations are launched with just minutes apart, pointing to that nominator has not performed WP:BEFORE in a reasonable manner. --Soman (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman: I may have initiated the nominations within minutes, but I spent an entire day performing web searches etc. to verify its notability. Vestrian24Bio 02:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet somehow you missed the press reporting on for this event. See Kantipur, Gorkhapatra, Online Khabar, Annapurna Post, Ratopati, Naya Patrika. --Soman (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Prime Minister Cup (Women)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : [55][56][57][58][59][60] these are links of the coverage of the tournament from the prominent newpaper for this season which should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Godknowme1 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are WP:ROUTINE. Vestrian24Bio 02:55, 21 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!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 SLC T20 League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 20 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!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Sri Lanka Cricket Super 4's T20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 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!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 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!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 National Cricket League Twenty20

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV for a separate season article. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for same reasons. Vestrian24Bio 05:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* – This article is notable due to coverage by reliable sources like ESPNcricinfo and other relevant media outlets. The sources have been added to support the article's notability.

--Sakib H Hridoy (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are a lot of offline and Bengali language sources ([61]) regarding NCL T20. I consider it to pass WP:NEVENT/WP:SIGCOV. This is a top-tier domestic league of a full member nation, seasonal articles are obviously needed for a proper arrangement of information and convenience for the readers. Apart from that, my concern is about the nominator, who had run a deletion campaign of several articles of cricket tournaments with exactly the same rationale Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG without a detailed explanation. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTSEVENT would be the appropriate guideline here, and these are WP:ROUTINE sources as in the WP:NEVENT guidelines as well. Vestrian24Bio 13:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe0nHead

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

Fails GNG. She has received some brief mentions due to her roles in promoting conspiracy theories about Balenciaga[62] and tweeting about online influencer dramas, but has not been relevant enough to get multiple sources providing her WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this page could be merged to Balenciaga#Child advertising controversy.

[63][64][65] Very brief mentions of the subject, little to no original commentary about Lapine herself.
[66] Only one paragraph worth of original commentary about Lapine.
[67] No original commentary about Lapine, the article only describes her opinions about someone else
[68] Unreliable, apparent content-mill source. It presents no meaningful original commentary on Lapine, beyond a single sentence introduction of who she is.
[69] An WP:INTERVIEW where Lapine talks about herself and Trump supporters, this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject when it comes to the statements made about her. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Singapore source (which is unrelated to The Independent), besides paraphrasing her opinions, does also paraphrases the opinion of another youtuber about her. Technically, that is some form of third party commentary, but it is not reliable (WP:NOTRS directly talks about sources that heavily rely on unreliable opinions). Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be moved to the draft namespace and get cleaned up? I'm not incredibly familiar with that process but given that the article is about a public figure who some may consider significant, it may make more sense than completely deleting it. In my opinion, it makes the most sense to convert the article into a stub and remove the unreliable sources. Azeelea (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should remove Vaush, Kyle Kulinski, and others’ pages too, then. 205.178.91.134 (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Badbluebus (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to have notability even if the sourcing of the article is terrible. Agree with Azeelea that the unreliable sources should be removed. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 19:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources, or any WP:N policy or guideline, to establish that this subject is notable? In my BEFORE, the sources not in the article also lacked WP:SIGCOV [70][71]. A WP:SIRS source eval would be helpful here. Badbluebus (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Lollipoplollipoplollipop, the sourcing ain't good but the solution should be to fix the article, preferably without moving to draft. Flimbone08 ; talk 21:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Editors arguing to Keep haven't provided any additional reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Church of Lucifer

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fringe organization. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. There is a small quantity of local media coverage, but it seems to be mainly about local events. Some hits on Google books, but those that are not self-published works refer to an older group of the same name during the 1960s, not this 21-century church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Paganism, and Texas. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For those wondering about the article deleted by the prior AFD discussion, as I was: Yes, it's the same subject, but the article is different, and also differently sourced. It's also a very similar nomination rationale, which is only to be expected if circumstances with available sourcing have not changed. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article of Luciferianism and Michael W. Ford mention this group. The Luciferian group in question has garnered not only local but also national media attention on two distinct occasions: (1) the inauguration of their Satanic church in Texas, which incited significant local protests from Christians, resulting in a modicum of national coverage; and (2) the conversion of one of their prominent leaders to Christianity, a development that has been extensively publicized by a Christian ministry with which he is affiliated. So, the article has some value historically. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article all appear to be Houston-local. Please list the in-depth national coverage you assert exists. Also under (2), we can't use affiliated sources, are there third-party sources covering that? If not, it's irrelevant. Also please note that the above editor is the recreator of the deleted article. Skyerise (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that other articles include cited content about the subject does not support it being notable enough for a standalone article, so that's not a valid argument against deletion. Skyerise (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources covered by international media like CBN, ABC etc. Also there's The Huffington Post. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the ABC citation is to the local Houston station page. That doesn't mean the coverage was national. And the HuffPost article adds nothing new, it simply summarizes the local coverage and links to it. This is all reporting on an event, specifically the Christian protest against the church, not in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am fixing the article now using more reliable sources. I fix a lot of articles at AfD but this one actually just flat out wasn't ready for mainspace. A bunch of claims were made about living people that weren't backed up by the sources cited in the footnotes. (Where did the information actually come from?) Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The best move would have been to draftify. Now that I've started fixing it I will try to finish. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the church has three pages in Massimo Introvigne's social history of satanism. That alone is sufficient to pass the GNG. It's also discussed in many other scholarly works on contemporary satanism, which you can see with a simple gbook search. Not least among these is Olivia Cejvan's whole article on the church found in the OUP book Satanism: A Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting although there is a growing consensus to Keep and no support for Deletion. It's strange how the deletion nomination from this AFD seems copied from the 1st AFD. Haven't seen that before in my AFD travels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improvements done show notability, sourcing is solid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article, and per above arguments.JunkBorax (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: New sources provided are sufficient to keep this article. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonists of the debate on sects in France

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

First of all, not notable, the sources do not establish notability. The French cult disputes are very notable, but this is not that, and that content is covered on other pages. This is an arbitrary list of three groups with no sourcing to past NLIST, with a brief bit of criticism from one group to another. None of the sources indicate notability. Also this article is poorly translated (beyond even the cult/sect issue, the phrasing is bizarre... very strange title. "Protagonists"?), and is almost entirely uncited, so there is nothing here to salvage or move to other articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morris A. Kravitz

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

Tukšumi (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator has provided no reason for deletion whatsoever. I also found multiple sizeable obituaries in addition to the ones already in the article. Geschichte (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Shopping malls, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not even a rationale. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An inadequate argument for deletion from an editor with a concerns about competence. Even treating the nomination with the seriousness that it does not deserve, the article demonstrates notability with multiple reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inamorata (Metallica song)

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

WP:NSONG clearly states the following: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label [...] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. This song unfortunately falls under the latter category.

I have done a great deal of research on this song and the album in general (as I plan to one day get 72 Seasons to GA), and I have come to the conclusion that Inamorata is not notable outside of 72 Seasons. All coverage of the song in reliable, secondary sources can basically be summarized to the following: "Metallica just released their longest song ever, go check it out!" or "Metallica just played their longest song ever live for the first time, go check out the VOD!", without offering any actual significant coverage or critical commentary towards the song itself. Instead, pretty much anything that actually has anything to say about the song is in the context of album reviews, which don't demonstrate notability; every opinion currently in the reception section is cited to album reviews except for one article that is mostly just demonstrating fan responses to the song. But obviously, fan opinions aren't useful here. The only thing that the song actually has going for it was charting in one lower-level, genre-specific chart in a singular region. However, every song from 72 Seasons also charted on that chart at the same time before each song quickly fell off shortly afterwards. Plus, NSONG clearly states that charting doesn't automatically make a song notable and has to be combined with sufficient coverage in other sources, which this song does not have, so that should be discarded. Hell, there's not even any "best songs of 2023" rankings or "Best Metallica song" rankings out there that cover Inamorata, and I'm usually an advocate for rankings being able to provide significant-coverage depending on how much meat the ranking has in regards to covering the song. But again, Inamorata has nothing on that front.

TL;DR: As a result of the lack of critical commentary and coverage beyond album reviews and run-of-the-mill coverage, Inamorata fails NSONG, and anything that can be said about the song can be easily summarized in the article for 72 Seasons, which this should be redirected to. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadjadji Anwar

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

Doesn't meet any of the eight criteria at WP:PROF and fails WP:GNG. Sources provided include a passing mention, and 1 dead link cited twice (unable to find archived link). I'm unsure about the DW source. Flat Out (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Flat Out (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the Rest of Your Life (album)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. There is not significant enough coverage of this album to warrant an article. When searching through Google News, I could only find the two Stereogum sources used in the article (one covering the album and one listing one of its songs as one of the best of the year.) Other than that, there is a mention in The Fader, but it is trivial. The rest of the sources in the article are ultimately questionable and should not warrant this album notability. A student radio is used as a major source, but those are a bit iffy in and of themselves. Locust member (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think there are too few reliable sources here. As well, the Stereogum articles already seem quite brief in their coverage. Eli Enis wrote about about the album on his blog, but alongside the student radio source, it isn't very useful for contributing to notability. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naf War

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:RS, whole article is mainly made up on : one source which itself is a self publish blog source. Other sources cited aren't reliable as well. This article was nominated for deletion at first on which the result was delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naf War, therefore this is a recreated article for a article itself which was deleted before, which passes WP:G4. Also the article is a pure hoax where Pretty much all the sources fails neutrality. No sources like "BBC news, The Tribune or The Frontline" covered this like 2001 Bangladesh–India border clashes. Additionally to mention, even the top Bangladesh news media did not cover it (prothom alo, dhaka tribune, financial express). Such a hoax article does not need to exist. Imwin567 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Imwin567 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominated it last time to a no consensus closure presumably because people didn't cast !votes. The only reliable sources on these are either routine coverage of a minor skirmish (BBC, Tehran times) or sources directly refuting that this war exists saying it was made up in a talk show one day. The facts of the allegedly reliable sources do not match each other. The dates are inconsistent, the timings reported are inconsistent and it's unclear if General Rahman (from whom the talk show source comes from) was even involved in the actual clash. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph's School, Jhajha

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

Sources are primary. Fails criteria for Schools. Not Notable . Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Bihar. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Page is Not Notable Flyingphoenixchips (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Flashpoint (comics) characters

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

A list of characters for a specific comic book story arc. This is not separately notable as a concept, as the characters of Flashpoint have received little coverage individually of their mainline counterparts. A search yielded nothing. All major plot relevant characters are covered in the plot section of Flashpoint, so I would support a Redirect here as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A reasonable WP:SPLIT. Remember that WP:NLIST indicates that list can be kept for navigational reasons; adding sources and removing material/spitting the page is necessary, though, which are cleanup issues. -Mushy Yank. 09:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims that were made by @Mushy Yank:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, a core content policy. There isn't a single non-primary source here, nor does there seem to be any discussion in sources of this grouping per WP:NLIST. This is merely the broader characters that appear in some story arc, many of which have articles due to independent notability, but not because they're in this specific arc, and so Mushy Yank's claim that this is a valid navigational list is just flat wrong. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but precisely because most characters have a page, a list is even more helpful in terms of navigation. WP:NLIST clearly states that although "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists" "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (emphasis mine; but maybe that too is "flat wrong"_. Also in terms of size, put back all this content in the article would make navigation extremely uneasy and a split is necessary. (But you have sources you can add if you wish, addressing the topic as a set: https://www.cbr.com/dc-flashpoint-heroes-ranked/ ; https://comicvine.gamespot.com/flashpoint-universe/4015-56524/characters/ ; https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/30/flashpoint-all-the-major-heroes-and-villains-in-the-epic-dc-flash-story https://comicsalliance.com/flashpoint-dc-comics/ and so on and they are also covered "in this specific arc" in The DC Comics Universe: Critical Essays. (2022). McFarland Publishing, pp. 118, 120 for example). -Mushy Yank. 00:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot. You now have sources you can add but your reference to WP:OR was absolutely not relevant anyway because regarding content of fiction, the fiction itself is the source (a guideline); see the essay Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary for further information: "For especially large or complex fictional works, certain elements may be split off into additional articles per WP:SS. Such related articles should be clearly cross-linked so that readers can understand the full context and impact of the work. Such an article may have what amounts to a different kind of plot summary. For instance, an article on Hamlet the character as opposed to Hamlet the play would just summarize Prince Hamlet's individual plot arc through the play. You might begin the section with something like, "The play charts Hamlet's tragic downfall as he pursues revenge against his uncle Claudius", and then summarize the events that contribute to that tragic downfall, using all the same guidelines you would in general." That is precisely the case of this list, from a split of the main page. -Mushy Yank. 00:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these bar the Valnet source (Which doesn't contribute to notability) are all either just character listings or plot summaries. While verifiable, being verifiable does not make a subject notable. Additionally, the article still fails Wikipedia:PLOT, as this would be all plot summary without any form of notability tied to it. Per MOS:CHARACTERS: "do not include every peripheral character, or every detail about a major character; this is not an indiscriminate collection of information." This list clearly fails this criteria, and if the main Flashpoint article needs a small section, so be it. But a whole list is not necessary for a subject of Flashpoint's size and the relative non-notability of this particular subset of characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This list serves no recognized navigational purpose, and it is OR. While the source material can serve as a source for basic plot summaries, as noted above, that doesn't extend to vast swaths of detailed, opinionated material about dozens and dozens of characters, which is what this list is. I spot checked two of those sources; one was WP:UGC, and another had no information about the topic. If you actually want to present sources, please stick to usable ones. Regardless, it's hard to see how such an overly detailed, crufty list such as this is needed. If you want to include a main character list in the main article, then do so, but this isn't needed (or notable). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject seemingly fails to meet the WP:NCORP, with a WP:BEFORE showing a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Organizations, Education, Technology, Computing, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mother's Day (Law & Order)

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

Not notable. Google books/news/scholar gives zero sources to show this article has any notability. The article also has templates from almost ten years ago (!) about the article not having sources. Article is mainly description of the episode plot and has no reception tab. sanodigy (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Popular culture. sanodigy (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Law & Order season 13; no indication of standalone notability. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Los Ratones

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

Propose deleting or redirecting to Caedrel per WP:ORG and WP:NSPORT. Los Ratones does have coverage in reliable sources focused on esports, such as Esports Illustrated (a subsidiary of Sports Illustrated), The Esports Insider, Esports News UK, and Esports.gg, but the coverage does not establish a claim to notability.

An organisation being popular because of its owner (Caedrel) and players' fanbase does not speak to the notability of the organisation, but to the owner and players. Being the first professional / semi-professional team to be allowed to live stream practice games ('scrims') is not an incredibly notable element even within just the purview of League of Legends esports.

The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters). General popularity driven by its owner and players does not equate to standalone notability, but probably does warrant a mention in the owner's (primarily) and players' articles. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair point. I completely agree with the proposal. Labratscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, sports teams, and especially esports teams are not covered under WP:NSPORT.

The sheer amount of coverage and fanfare from esports journals is unprecedented for a team this new(with no prior continuity) and playing at this level. Even in the linked articles, specifically the one from esports.gg, there are claims of notability here:

"Los Ratones revitalized a small league"

"It's not an understatement that Caedrel and his team saved the NLC as a whole,"

"it's undeniable that Los Ratones brought some changes to the esports industry's business model"

Just two days ago Dimitri Pascaluta of TheScore Esports stated

"Los Ratones are basically single-handedly revitalizing western League"

And he's made similar statements in the past published by TheScore Esports such as

"Los Ratones are changing competitive League"

"For us western fans, (Los Ratones) is the best thing to happen to League of legends since 2019"

I can find other examples if wanted about prominent LoL journalists or prominent figures in the LoL pro scene espousing LR's significance if wanted. If the issue is poor sourcing, that is not grounds for deletion. The esports.gg article you linked passes the criteria in WP:SIRS and I can easily find others such as this one from SI. Otherwise, I fail to see how LR doesn't qualify as notable per WP:ORG.

I agree that neither winning a minor tournament, popularizing scrim streaming, having several high profile members within the scene, having a large fanbase, nor simply recieving coverage from reputable journals on their own constitute notability for Los Ratones, but surely the sum of the team's contributions to professional LoL do. LR get vastly more media coverage than most teams, media coverage that mentions the significance of specifically the team, and while if the popularity of the team were simply a result of Caedrel, then the proposal to move the LR page to a section on the Caedrel page would have merit, but that's an inaccurate assertion. TheBausFFS is the second biggest English language LoL streamer(behind Caedrel), Rekkles is one of the most popular European pros even just half a year ago having been on stage lifting the worlds 2024 trophy with the rest of T1, and Nemesis also has had a very prominent following for years. Should each of them, who have all espoused LR as being so personally significant to them, and each have brought their own audience to LR have a "Los Ratones" section in their pages?

The sheer amount of references to LR in otherwise unrelated LoL broadcasts and online discussions should reinforce the need that a Wikipedia article exist for it. It's already clear from the past 5 months that LR's influence isn't just tied to any specific event or person, and while it's exceptional for organizations of this kind to meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article within such little time, in this case, I argue the criteria is met. Bausen Slaw (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of Los Ratones' claim to notability. Popularity != notability. A lot of personalities are well-known and covered in their respective niches, but they don't have a claim to fame aside from being popular. Opinions and praise, even from relevant people in the scene, are irrelevant to this discussion.

My point was that Los Ratones does have coverage in the esports scene, but it's within the background of the articles' larger discussions of the owner (Caedrel) or players, or in one article's case, Doublelift. Los Ratones, the organisation / team itself, has not achieved or done anything notable; the actions you highlighted were decisions made by Caedrel. Accordingly, the sources we gave aren't focused on what the organisation did but what Caedrel did with his organisation; i.e. Los Ratones is covered because Caedrel is covered.

Therefore, the notability is inherited from Caedrel and the topic is better suited in Caedrel's article if retained in some capacity. As a standalone topic, the team has one title in a tier-three tournament, possibly a title in a tier-two tournament in the near future, and its biggest achievement outside of competition is starting the trend of having its practice games live streamed. I argue that's not enough for standalone notability. Yue🌙 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though LR have just won the EMEA Masters on their first-ever attempt, I would ask you to seriously reconsider your conclusion that LR are not "notable" as per the guidelines. Caedrel started LR with very little, if any, coaching experience and his team has won every single tournament they have competed in. That in itself is notable. The team's notability is not just inherited from Caedrel, but rather the popularity and attention the team has collectively attracted. They are a mixture of ex-retired competitive players, high-ranking European players, and content creators, and they are all over the esports news scene, especially recently. LR's existence and popularity are the reason their EMEA finals match has garnered the most views in the competition's history.

I would not propose the deletion of an entire article that enables people to cherish, appreciate and recognise LR's accomplishments just because better sources can be cited. Those sources undoubtedly exist, and are a testament to LR deserving their own page. In my view, you have not proven that LR's notability has fallen below the threshold as per the guidelines. Iyanakin (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Every topic has value for someone. My arguments are based on policy, not my personal feelings. As I argued above, it does not matter that a team has fans; all professional and semi-professional teams have fans, especially if their players are well known. Los Ratones winning a tier-two tournament does not change my argument, which you and others can challenge and argue against by citing policy. Instead of alluding to sources that "undoubtedly exist" (presumably you mean in-depth coverage as well), just cite them. Also, a less-than-day-old account concluding that I have not proven a policy-based argument after citing their feelings as the basis for notability rather than the notability guidelines is something. Yue🌙 18:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, it doesn't matter how old my or your account is - that's a fallacious "appeal to authority" as you're trying to legitimise your argument based on how long you've been an editor on this site. I work full-time and viewed that your hopes of removing LR from Wikipedia were serious enough to warrant making an account and defending LR's online presence. I couldn't care less about how long you've had your account, but I would question your authority on the topic of esports given the majority of your more obvious background relates to editing articles about country flags. What I care more about is your brazen disregard for anything "notable" that LR have done. It seems to me that you don't understand what "notable" actually means.

I don't disagree with your policy argument at all. I never spoke about "fans" or my emotions in my reply, so you're unfortunately attacking a straw man. There are also other arguments to be made apart from policy arguments, and while they can be convincing, there is no automatic superiority of policy arguments if we were to make a hierarchy of argument types. It is very reasonable to argue that popularity does not necessarily make something notable, but there is often a strong correlation between the two, as in LR's case. I never said LR should not disappear from Wikipedia merely because they are popular. But I will still bother to list below several weaknesses in your argument, and why, starting with the most obvious.

"The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters)." If that isn't notable, what is? Winning the LEC? Winning Worlds?

You don't actually explain why those things are not notable. You diminish LR's achievements by speaking of tournaments in terms of tiers. LR won the NNO Cup, NLC and the EMEA Masters on their first attempt, which is every competition they tried competing in since the team's inception in November 2024. Hilariously, they even beat T1 in a showmatch. Dom Sacco, an award-winning esports journalist, writes how LR "make history with the EMEA Masters Winter 2025 win, become first UK-registered esports organisation to claim an EM title": https://esports-news.co.uk/2025/03/23/los-ratones-emea-masters-winter-2025/. This is not the first time Esports News UK has written about LR: https://esports-news.co.uk/2024/12/09/nno-cup-season-2-recap-los-ratones/. Sports Illustrated have done so: https://www.si.com/esports/news/los-ratones-dominate-emea-masters-recap-league-of-legends, and so have Esports Insider: https://esportsinsider.com/2025/03/los-ratones-emea-masters-winter-2025-viewership, PCGamesN: https://www.pcgamesn.com/league-of-legends/los-ratones-esports, The Pinnacle Gazette: https://evrimagaci.org/tpg/los-ratones-the-rise-of-league-of-legends-newcomers-99443, BetUS: https://www.betus.com.pa/esports/news/los-ratones-are-the-nno-cup-season-2-winners-12-10-2024/, and Esports.net: https://www.esports.net/news/lol/los-ratones-win-emea-masters-winter/. You get the idea. These are all independent media outlets as far as LR are concerned, and you have not explained why LR's achievements, in light of this coverage and the wealth of information it includes, are not notable.

How about some other reasons LR are notable? I'll just list them here as there's too much to say.

Their players come from a diverse range of backgrounds, have many achievements, and from an external perspective, have not received anywhere near as much financial and training support as some of the other teams they have competed against, such as KCB. They are a very small team outside the starting five players, and are able to sustain themselves thanks to content creation. This makes LR seem like a very strange yet unique combination of different parts. Caedrel has been a content creator for ages and has himself admitted that he does not have much, if any coaching experience outside LR. Baus never competed seriously in a professional capacity and is known for his extremely unconventional playstyle, proving that he can still succeed in pro play with such a style, as seen recently during the EMEA Masters. Velja is similar but has ranked very highly in European ranked play. This is to be contrasted with Crownie and Nemesis, who have re-entered the competitive scene, moving on from previously very successful careers, including where they both won the EMEA Masters together 7 years ago. Rekkles was most recently a sub when T1 won Worlds, and has competed in Worlds before to come 2nd with Fnatic. What may have started out as a passion project between these players has become much more serious and high-stakes. They are very fan-oriented, which many other competitive players and their team staff members have commented on, in the way they bond with their communities and show their esports development journey. They stream their scrims, which is highly unusual given they are essentially exposing their tactics for anyone to make use of however they wish, including their competitors, and have inspired other pro play teams to do so too.

In winning the EMEA Masters, LR have become the first UK-registered team to do so ever. In competing with LR, Rekkles has become the first-ever player to win the EMEA Masters in ADC and support, two different roles. This would not have been possible with LR. I highly doubt any of these players would appreciate their achievements with LR being reduced to something they are solely and only responsible for, or something mainly attributable to Caedrel's popularity before founding LR. In many instances, they have said how their achievements would not have been possible without LR, such as Velja, who was the MVP for the EMEA Masters final. LR, as a newly emerging team, have made a significant portion of LOL players/watchers actually enjoy watching pro play given the way they have been able to captivate and entertain their community, which no other team similar to their size and history has been able to do recently. If you want to continue insisting that all of this, when taken together, is not notable enough for its own page on Wikipedia, be my guest. Iyanakin (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bit of Love (Kesha song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See the critical reception section and references in the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception section is all album reviews, which NSONG specifies don't establish notability. There's not one source that is about this song. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion so far contains assertions about sourcing and notability, but actual analysis of sourcing beyond the nominator would be helpful. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am the nominator, but I hope this is helpful: Four of the six citations are album reviews for High Road, which NSONG specifies can't be used to establish a song's notability. One is the single on Spotify, which is the source cited for its release date. One is a now-deleted article on Idolator that was presumably like "hey, a new performance on Ellen is viewable on YouTube". There's a similar article, unused here, from Billboard. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to High Road (Kesha album) per nom. मल्ल (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 7777

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

Notability tag has been on the article since 2021. No other sources added to establish notability. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 15:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: it's the eponym of a small galaxy group, but there hasn't been much content published. I suggest a redirect to List of NGC objects (7001–7840) where it already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]