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 23	March 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Zorro Ranch, New Mexico

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

Notrhing notable about this chunk of real estate apart from the link to Epstein; WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd redirect to the dead criminal, but I don't think there's a mention. TheLongTone (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- WP:GNG requires that multiple reliable sources cover a topic in detail, and the sources on this article clearly show that this is true. Whether they should devote so much attention to such a topic is something that can be debated, but they clearly do, so it passes the Wikipedia notability criteria, which require it to be possible to write a well-cited article on it -- as has been done. Additionally, I'm pretty some of the articles discuss why he chose New Mexico. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The attention is all down to the Epstein connection. As above, see WP:NOTINHERITED. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what NOTINHERITED means. It doesn't mean anything notable for being connected with something else can't be notable, it means they don't get that without their own coverage. For comparison, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It means that the coverage would not happen without the associaton with somebody famous or infamous.TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG.”You can be notable solely for such a thing and still be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete It is telling that every single reference is a news report with Epstein's name in the title. I'm hard pressed to think that people have an interest in the place for its own sake, and in case we get into arguments about not saying the magic words, notability is not inherited. Mangoe (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Epstein per AtD. No independent notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sourcing isn’t astounding but seems enough to pass GNG and the sources are primarily about the ranch, so. NOTINHERITED is for when there is no sourcing about a thing but people vote as if it inherits the notability from something else. The sources are about the place! NOTINHERITED says “can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship” if it passes the GNG. If you want to make a NOPAGE argument that is more understandable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Whiti, New Zealand

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

Fails both NPLACE (it isn't legally recognised) and GNG

I cannot find any evidence in a reliable source that this is a real locality. The main source for this article is a UGC website (something akin to Geocities). The Gazetteer source does not mention 'Te Whiti' nor is a 'Te Whiti' gazetted in that source. The most I could find is a Te Whiti o Tu pa site [1] and some roads bearing the name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching "Te Whiti o Tu" shows there was a conflict there in 1823, and the 1901 Kahiti O Niu Tireni showed that someone elected to the Maori council was listed as being from there (from May the People Live: A Story of Maori Health Development.) The NZ government even says a settlement was established there. The battle is discussed significantly in the text here at archive.org. If we can show a school there closed it'd easily pass GEOLAND but it probably passes GNG as well. SportingFlyer T·C 01:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND requires legal recognition, which this place (now aware there was some form of settlement bearing the name) does not have. The battle would be in reference to the pa that used to be there, which are not presumed notable. A school bearing the name has no bearing on the legal recognition of the area e.g. Bayfield School which is located in the unofficial neighbourhood of Bayfield (split between the legally recognised Herne Bay, New Zealand and Ponsonby, New Zealand).

Gladstone, New Zealand is the legally recognised area that covers the area and it could be mentioned there as an ATD. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough out there on the battle alone that it deserves to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia. A school would simply show it was a populated place at one time. SportingFlyer T·C 01:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the battle meets GNG that is a separate matter. A redirect to an article on the battle would be an ATD but currently no such article exists. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Brotherhood Militia

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

The links on the page are not reliable sources, and none appear to exist online, beyond possibly the ADL hate symbols database which mentions a "Southern Brotherhood", but that appears to me to be a different organisation. I am not 100% convinced that this militia even exists as such, though there are blogs which claim to represent the group. In any case, no WP:SIGCOV exists in any reliable source I am aware of. BTW, I am 100% that the article was written largely by somebody close to the subject Boynamedsue (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and no unambiguous online information about the group could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Organizations, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Oderin

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

Non-notable nobleman with a biography that hundreds of Czech medieval lower nobles had. The sources used are only Trivial mentions. FromCzech (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is the same and my arguments are similar to those found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petr Píšek. To sum up, this was a politically important individual during a politically important time, as stated by the sources. The subject ruled from a notable castle. He was an early patron of what is now a UNESCO World Heritage Site. His portrayal in recent media is not irrelevant. This is a 600 year old figure, and there are undoubtedly undigitized sources or those I missed in my initial search. Mbdfar (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to repeat myself, but WP:SIGCOV is missing, so I don't even need to write any more reasons. He is from a councilor family, not a noble family. "Politically important" is not in the cited sources. He did not rule from a notable castle, but he just owned rural fort in Ratboř, as [3] says. Among the donors of the Church of St. Barbara were many town's burghers, as the source says, so this does not make him notable either. FromCzech (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite my understanding. I did not cite this work because I didn't want to incorrectly translate Latin or German, but Borový 1927 mentions the subject several times (see further reading, make sure to search for Latin name conjugations). My understanding is that the subject is much more than a simple church donor as you'd suggest, and that he was an important figure in the early days of St. Barbara's Church. See page 125 for example. I'd welcome your interpretation or translations. Mbdfar (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone please provide significant coverage in IRS when it comes to royalty? It has been a long time since I got familiar with them. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "politically important" comes from the cited source, where it states "Odreinové patřili k nejstarším radním rodům ve městě a svoje postavení si udrželi až do husitských válek". The phrase "councilor family" does not have any meaning. I read this as more akin to a patrician, similar to the cs:starý patriciát. I think my paraphrasing was apt, but please correct me if you still disagree and it can be rewritten in the article. And for what it's worth, the old castle in Ratboř seems notable, certainly notable enough to be a wartime target, and is now dedicated as a cultural monument (also interestingly it was later owned by other notable people such as cs:Bernard Mandelík and cs:Hubert von Czibulka, but I digress)[2] [3].

That stuff doesn't really matter, but I also disagree that the sources are as trivial as you mention. I think further translation should be done to improve this article, but I do believe the number of times the subject appears in Čelakovský (1916), Vaněk (2011), and Borový (1927), supported by the other sources and context push the subject into notability. Mbdfar (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant burgher family, if you don't like the term councilor family. Local political importance is not a carrier of notability, if there is no SIGCOV. The fortress in Ratboř was no different from the others in the area, so I don't know how you judge the notability. Its modern history is more remarkable. There were at least 19 such fortresses and castles in the vicinity of Kutná Hora, and due to their medieval origin, all of them are protected as cultural monuments. Because these are defensive structures, they were of course a target of attack during the wars. But even if Oderin owned Prague Castle, it wouldn't be enough on its own page without SIGCOV. The sources are not enough, as evidenced by the form of the page, which is just a collection of small fragments instead of a coherent biography or a description of some notable act he performed. FromCzech (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said that stuff doesn't really matter. But if you're going to keep bringing it up, I don't think burgher is a good description and the other fortresses are probably notable to. I believe there is enough coverage to satisfy SIGCOV. If you don't want this article to be a collection of small fragments, help me with the translation of the provided sources to improve it. Mbdfar (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does, however, add context. From my perspective, these facts, along with the lasting coverage over 600 years, indicate that the subject was more than a WP:MILL local politician. Mbdfar (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 17 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!} 23:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proplyd 133-353

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, has no substantial coverage beside the discovery paper. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on SIMBAD it appears to be catalogued as COUP 540. But yes, there's nothing in the way of additional useful resources. Nowhere in the paper does it say this is a likely sub-brown dwarf; all it says is that "Proplyd 133-353 could be a planetary-mass object". Praemonitus (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see two usable sources. [4] where it is initially catalogued and [5] where it is discussed in depth. The abstract of the latter says "[According to our data,] Proplyd 133-353 is substellar (∼M9.5) and has a mass probably less than 13 Jupiter mass and an age younger than 0.5 Myr." I think that even if one detailed paper is deemed insufficient it should be merged into Theta1 Orionis C or Trapezium Cluster.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dry text

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

WP:NOTDICT This is a lump of very possible ephemeral slang. TheLongTone (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- multiple reliable sources, and this article discusses a style of texting, rather than just a specific word. Possibly it could be merged into another article discussing texting styles. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more sources & info on the topic Mrfoogles (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if this is kept, I think it should be moved to "Dry texting" -- the phenomenon described. Not sure why it's currently titled "Dry text". Mrfoogles (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: merge: Texting has a section on etiquette, but I am unsure if there is a main article. Linked this article from there. Overall, unless there is a full article on texting etiquette I am unaware of, I would oppose of a merge. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment by nominator I would have thought that texting etiquette is certainly a noteworthy subject (and given the sive of the article on texting worth a separate article) and coud usefully include this article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to withdraw the nomination, then? —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mrfoogles's sources. Several high-quality sources discussing the subject over the course of at least two years seems sufficiently sustained to cover. Rusalkii (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:24, 17 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!} 23:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Etiquette in technology: where the topic of texting etiquette is already covered. As the nom suggests, this subject deserves broader coverage. There is probably enough sourcing and encyclopedic content to spin this off into a Texting etiquette article, which will also cover the topic of dry text. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collective (organisation)

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

Insufficient third-party coverage i.e. not meeting notability requirements. The page has four third-party sources. Of these, one only mentions Collective a single time in passing, another is an opinion piece (see WP:RSOPINION) and another is the World Socialist Web Site, of which there is no consensus regarding its reliability. The other is a Greek source with unknown reliability and unlisted status on WP:RSPS. Helper201 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was expecting a wildly different subject from the title and the nomination. Nonetheless, I had a look around. The first stop is all of what has been taken out of the article since its creation. It seems that editors have been wielding the sword of verifiability well. The sources originally cited were either entirely speculative things from 2024 that made zero factual claims, or sources about a different political party, currently with one person (they say) where those sources seem to have obtained their information about this political party from that one person, who claims that xe is being supported by some unspecified entity named this. The Greek source is based entirely in turn upon these speculative sources, and looking at the purported WWW page of this purported organization and assuming that what it reads on the WWW is true.
But it gets worse than the false sourcing. As one editor observed, the original article had a fake address for this supposed organization. (It turns out that Progressive House is not any building in London that I can find, but rather progressive house.) I also observe that there were hyperbolic claims to membership figures unsupported by any source and assertions of facts not stated anywhere, not even on the dubious WWW page.
There are a couple of unreliable personal WWW sites to be found, but ironically the thing to observe about them is that they talk of a shadowy organization, that they found was incorrectly registered at Companies House, taking their money and then saying that they are not to be let into "secret" meetings, and of Jeremy Corbyn denying being involved in new political parties at all in a TV interview. (Just for fun, I looked up the Companies House listing. The corporate address is a place that rents out office rooms by the day. So the personal WWW sites seem to have a point.)
I'm half suspecting at this point that this is a wholesale con and that a Wikipedia article is part of it. We can do something about the latter, at least. It is unverifiable from any source, reliable or no, that this is a real thing at all. And the unreliable sources want to know where all this supposed money is going.
Delete. Uncle G (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too new to have had much coverage. I can only find coverage about different collectives, nothing about this outfit. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has gotten decent coverage: [6] [7] [8] [9] TurboSuperA+ (☏) 19:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Canary is listed on WP:RSP as unreliable, while there is no consensus regarding the reliability of the other sources. Helper201 (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it has not. Every single one of those, including the one of already mentioned problematic reliability, is reporting-on-reporting, sourced back to the original reporting that contains, as I wrote above, no actual factual claims in the first place. There's actually a later one from the same newspaper cited in the article. It's entirely "would" and "might" and lots of questions. And the earlier one is "hoped" and future tense. It is a lot of journalistic cop-outs. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Please look again, The Canary is listed on WP:RSP. Helper201 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per my reasoning at the top of the page. Helper201 (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helper201: Your nomination is treated as a delete !vote, a relisting does not require a second !vote. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bounkou Camara

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

Declined prod. Added sources are not indepth or databases/results listings: [10], [11]. This link doesn't appear to refer to the person. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NOLY and WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried both versions/spellings of the name on .mr websites, nothing turns up. There just isn't enough sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not 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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the last discussion. Maxwell Smart¹²³³²¹ 20:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which argument(s) from the last? That discussion had a series of votes with absolutely no basis in policy (including that the song is charting well despite being an introductory track, that the article's author put lots of effort into the article, that it's charting in Asia) and one vote claiming that it meets GNG, which was unsubstantiated and the article's sourcing (as well as a search online) shows is clearly not the case. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having peaked in the top ten and top five in numerous Asian countries, it's the most notable album track from Eternal Sunshine. The article is incredibly detailed and includes coverage such as the song's live performance video on its own. An extended version will be included on the deluxe and be the subject of more commentary as well. Flabshoe1 (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where it charted doesn't have anything to do with the notability guidelines for a song. A single report from Rolling Stone that a live version of the song was released online does not count as independent non-trivial coverage of the song in multiple sources. Future commentary can't be accounted for; this is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). Any and all arguments for wanting to keep this article I feel completely misrepresent WP:NSONG, and I believe that the first deletion discussion wanting to keep this article was a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL, as in building an article around coverage that will later exist for no reason that is more detailed than a simple "trust me bro". It's been 11 months since that discussion, and the coverage that was so highly anticipated has not come to fruition.

NSONG clearly states that a song charting or being certified might be an indicator that it is notable, but it usually needs to work with something alongside it. That could obviously be articles exclusively about the song that discuss it in detail (not "this song was performed live today for the first time!" or "here's an interview discussing it's creation!"), or rankings of the best songs in a certain category (e.g. best songs released in a year). Hell, in most circumstances I'd say that a song placing in a ranking of a band discography can be acceptable to prove notability if there's some meat to it. Even run-of-the-mill coverage like what I just mentioned could be useful if there's meat to it. But this song doesn't have any of that. It is near entirely pieced together by run-of-the-mill coverage such as the aforementioned Rolling Stone piece that says a version of the song was released online but not much more, or in articles specifically talking about the album in the context of a review or a track-by-track analysis. Sure, this is worthwhile information detailing the song... in the context of the album. In-fact, NSONG makes it very clear that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability". I do understand that the article is reasonably detailed and I commemorate the authors work here to make it a GA, but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album). λ NegativeMP1 20:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"but notability isn't met here and I think it should redirect to Eternal Sunshine (album)." But there, hopefully it is more clear now.

Redirect/merge I find that NegativeMP1 explains my argument better than I can. My thoughts on this article's notability remain the same as it did during the previous AfD. This view of charts as an indicator of notability is heavily misunderstood. Just because an album track charted higher than the rest does not guarantee it's notable; SIGCOV outside of album reviews does. A lot of tracks that appeared in two charts - or hell, none at all - are notable by WP:GNG standards (Joni (song) as an example, or many of the articles on Category:Unreleased songs). Conversely, many songs that did chart in a lot of countries are not. And re. "this is detailed enough to have its own article," (1) the details about the song here, such as the series of Eternal Sunshine surprise performances, can easily be covered in the album article. (2) a lot of incredibly detailed articles, many of which were of FA-quality, were merged into their parent articles. Elias 🦗🐜 ^{[Chat, they chattin', they chat]} 01:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PSA, see the relisting comment ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Those calling for a Redirect or Merge, please specify the target. Don't assume the closer will guess you meant Eternal Sunshine (album) or any other target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Eminem#Personal life without prejudice against a selective merge. I see no support for retaining this as a standalone article, and no objection to the proposed ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Nelson

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

Taking the article to AFD since a PROD was contested. I won't sugarcoat this; the primary (if not sole) reason Debbie even got any publicity at all is for family affiliations, namely being Eminem's mom. Being related to him or anyone else doesn't by itself entitle someone to a Wikipedia page as WP:BIOFAMILY notes. When there's little to no indication the subject was noted for anything of her own merits, I'm sure this fails WP:BIO, especially when lots of the sources that do mention Ms. Nelson (aside from obituaries) are more centered on her son. Yes, I know he often has often brought up his mother's name within songs (and faced controversy for it), but that's not enough to warrant a separate page either. It seems all the details on her worth nothing are already in articles for those tracks and/or Em's main bio anyway. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your statement. Instead, she should have a section describing the lawsuit and disses, not her own page. Lemans917K (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Let's ignore the fact that she's recently died; all sources from before this event (going back years) are all passing mentions in articles about Eminem. Had she not died, she wouldn't get an article. There is nothing showing notability for her, she had a non-notable career. I can't see that she passes AUTHOR, the books she wrote have their own articles. There is perhaps an article about her relationship with her son, for which we have lots of coverage. Notability would be more about the relationship, not the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to or merge into Eminem § Personal life, where she is mentioned. (ATD declaration since this made the rounds on WP's front page last December.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this meets WP:BIO. Agree the content can be included here Eminem § Personal life Barrettsprivateers (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems unusual for an article that was mentioned on the main page (news section), and is listed as B-class, to be deleted. The content probably should be kept somewhere, if not on a standalone page. Fryedk (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Eminem. WIthour her son, the subject would not meet WP:GNG Variety312 (talk) 18:31, 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!} 23:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tower restaurant

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

Doesn't appear to be a actual or at least commonly used category of restaurant after a BEFORE. Unsourced since 2009. Phrase not used in any dictionary, including wiktionary. In search, most uses of "tower restaurant" are part of a larger phrase, such as "Eiffel Tower restaurant". Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 18:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, this has been around unsourced since 2005! Most of the items on the list are just the buildings, not even the names of the non-notable restaurants. This is a pretty generic concept with no specific sources and the list is obviously quite incomplete. Revolving restaurant is certainly a notable and less ubiquitous concept, but there's not anything really distinguishing about a restaurant on the 50th floor vs. one on the 5th, just a view but I'm not sure what else to say about that. Reywas92^Talk 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how a more ubiquitous thing is thereby less notable for purposes of inclusion in an encyclopædia. The more ubiquitous thing might be less exceptional, but we're not just covering the rare and unusual here. This is an encyclopædia, not Ripley's Believe It or Not. Also, if the category is not as commonly used, that would tend to support these things being less ubiquitous, wouldn't it? I tentatively concede that if tower restaurants are really quite as ubiquitous as you suggest (press X to doubt), then perhaps examples aren't notable just for being tower restaurants only, and thus perhaps there is no need to list just any and every unexceptional tower restaurant. But not every article has to have War and Peace vibes. Perhaps a simple article barely over stub-length might suffice. That's all fixable without article deletion though. Granted, fixing that might be boring, and the article might remain neglected for a long time, but that's also not a good reason for deletion. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 03:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ReadOnlyAccount The overall question isn't if it's ubiquitous we should keep it. Something even more ubiquitous than tower restaurants may be red towers, but if sources don't describe "red tower" as a grouping, we don't write Red tower. Do you have RS showing "tower restaurant" exists a concept? I hope you do, and we can WP:HEY. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon just a tiny bit of cursory "research" (read: googling), it seems the related term "rooftop bar" is better established (these places often do serve food too, so there is significant overlap, and the differences are a matter of degrees, though not all of the former would be the latter and vice versa). I might have proposed merging with rooftop bar, except that doesn't exist, so shucks – or aw-shucks, even!

Possibly even more shucksworthy might be the fact that a good part of such third-party coverage as tends to hang out near the top of google results appears to often refer to tower restaurants by the superlative-minded moniker/description "tallest restaurants (...in the world /clarkson)". Even though that may be the more common term for actual tower restaurants (not mere rooftop bars), I prefer the less common name on grounds of technical accuracy: It's not actually the restaurants that are yay tall. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This reddit post made me smile, because "high-rise restaurant" sounds as European as a continental breakfast – which latter, btw. is another perfect example for something that's very ubiquitous but also not exceptional, yet probably deserving of its own article.

That's why the should be called "The highest restaurant in X" Moritoriko (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think rooftop bar really captures this concept. Take the example above of the "Eiffel Tower restaurant", it's not a bar, nor is it on a rooftop (imagine). Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a hierarchy here: The most general concept is physically elevated establishments to eat, drink, and be merry. (WANTED: Pithy term.) Rooftop bars, cliff-top restaurants, and tower restaurants are all types of that. A revolving restaurant is probably always a type of tower restaurant, probably the most desirable type. You want the place to have a view. Just because it rotates, and you eat/drink in it— oh hello, Manuscript Found in a Police State (Brian Aldiss, 1972). Jokes aside, I think the—duly linked—presence of a tower restaurant article actually helps explain the revolving restaurant, and I'm still more in favour of keeping something like this in place. I realise that deciding upon a taxonomy verges on original research, to an extent; again, 'matter of degrees I suppose. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This is not an actual category as far as my searching found. It feels like 'Castle restaurants', is it a nice feature of some restaurants. A more extreme example is 'patio restaurants' because that's an actually established term. I think rooftop bar is a poor merge target as well because rooftop bars are generally open air which these are usually not. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to List of notable tower restaurants. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides "tower restaurant" not being a real term, it looks the former Windows on the World is the only one with a standalone article; typically the tower itself is what's notable and the respective article only makes brief mention of the restaurant. Reywas92^Talk 14:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's has been a bit of a clue to panoramic restaurant in the second sentence of the article since 2005. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitória school attack

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

WP:not (old) news. Seems like a relitivly trivial incident. TheLongTone (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- Wikipedia notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, which this topic has, as shown by sources cited in the article. Whether the incident is trivial is completely irrelevant. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there are multiple sources, they are all more or less concurrent to the event. WP:NOT is a pillar policy, and this is a clear fail of WP:NOTNEWS 4.37.252.50 (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources linked in the article span all the way until May 2023, 9 months after the attack, closely monitoring his trial until it was eventually sealed by the court. This indicates that his attack was still notable nearly a year later, especially given how he was in direct contact with the perpetrator of the Barreiras school shooting.

Keep - The article references substantial coverage from multiple reliable sources spanning around 9 or so months of constant news updates, demonstrating its overall notability. Walking Spellcheck (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2025 (BRT)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of school attacks in Brazil – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons listed above. BadVibesAllOver (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Only a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Adeyemi

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

Non-notable "physician", "politician", and individual. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Politicians, Women, Medicine, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who said she's a politician? Ahola .O (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has some published papers in Gscholar, unsure what her h-factor is though... I can sort of access Scopus [12], seems rather low. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It wasn't mentioned or categorized that she's a politician or an author. She passes both WP:BIO and WP:GNG.

Here are some reports about her on Businessday and Thisdaylive: Why I’m Mentoring a New Generation of Women – THISDAYLIVE, Lola Adeyemi, Founder and CEO at Mentoring Her - Businessday NG but i considered them to be interviews. For WP:BIO, she is a Nigerian cancer researcher that has presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and World Health Organization (WHO), has been recognized by Forbes, was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and a Special Advisor to the Minister of Education, Nigeria. I hope this helps. Ahola .O (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent, reliable sources supporting the subject's notability. A brief internet search reveals that most available sources are interviews or press releases, which are not considered reliable for establishing notability. Additionally, presentations at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) do not, on their own, confer notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real sourcing to support a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 21:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Publications from notable universities are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. This page has a reference from Johns Hopkins University which talked about her education and being a physician. Additionally, I recently added some references from Nairametrics, and Media Trust. Concerning reliable sources about the subject's notability, she was awarded by Johns Hopkins University and was recognized in a Forbes's list which are both published on thier websites and are in use in the page. This page is a stub, instead of trying to get rid of it, why not help in expanding it. I have made some changes to the page, and I hope they help. Ahola .O (talk) 10:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AS Monaco Reserves and Academy

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

It doesn't seem like this article is a useful fork of AS Monaco FC. There is also nothing worth incorporating from here into the main article. It's just one squad list. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pure/Honey

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not 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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD found consensus to redirect to the album's article, per lack of demonstrated notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garden of Eden (Lady Gaga song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not 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. That guideline's text also suggests in an explanatory note to the word "multiple" that more recent songs need more sources to establish notability. The two cited sources of which "Garden of Eden" is the subject are trivial reports that a new single has released. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Song is charting in more than 20 countrys. — 5.61.144.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 20:15, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to policy. "Keep" votes should demonstrate notability with multiple, non-trivial published works about the song itself, not its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what keeps you motivated deleting things. Its not like wiki is running out of space. This is cleary an important pop cultural moment and will be one of her next singles (the espn commercial) and is already charting. Why wasting so much time here my friend? 5.61.144.187 (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s because I’m terrified of important pop culture moments and slated singles as indicated by ESPN commercials. You? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should seek help my friend if you are that easily terrified. Maybe you are also terrified by the g a h a y s, don't you? Religion all over your dashboard. q.e.d. 5.61.144.187 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are more than enough references and the song is charting well Pxlpixx (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter how the song is charting. The coverage of this song is totally trivial and scant. “This just came out” is not in-depth, non-trivial coverage. Two single release announcements do not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The quality of the coverage, that you personally perceive, is irrelevant to the deletion discussion.

The song has an ESPN media cooperation that has been reported about by Pink News, Rolling Stone, Stereogum, Designscene, Billboard and The Times of India. Pitchfork has also reported about the song itself seperately from its album review.

The song has charted in over 22 territories, which IS an indicator of notability as per WP:NSONGS.

Easy keep. — Amenvodka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of coverage is absolutely relevant to demonstrated notability in sources. New single announcements are not WP:SIGCOV. NSONGS does not say that charting indicates or bears on notability for Wikipedia—it says that a search for sources to establish notability is more likely to be successful if a song is charting nationally. The sourcing is what matters. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a fork from the album article is appropriate given the impressive charting, coverage, and the amount of content here. I'd prefer to see this article expanded and improved, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Covered by multiple reliable sources and charting in 20+ countries. Meets WP:NSONG.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one participant has pointed to specific sourcing - further analysis of the sourcing would be helpful as with the contention that this is an WP:OKFORK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Imperfect for You

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not 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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson Pereira (footballer)

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

Player who made his professional career in Albania and has played a few matches in the first division, but who fails in WP:SIGCOV, appearing only in databases. Svartner (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Brazil, and Albania. Svartner (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Race Craft

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

Entirely promotional article created by a WP:SPA. Amigao (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, Connecticut, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael David Walsh II

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

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability backed up by WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cozy (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not 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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Sunshine (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not 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. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True Story (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not 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. That guideline also suggests, in the footnote for "multiple", that the number of sources needed to establish notability is increased with more recent songs—I count only a single source whose subject is "True Story". The rest is coverage of its album. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News to Me

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

Non-notable television program. I was unable to find any sources about it. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HLN (TV network)#Programming Program was non-notable user-generated filler in that space between the feature phone and smartphone ages in a time where HLN was trying to move beyond news (and failing). Short mention in the HLN article is more appropriate. Nathannah • 📮 01:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medical narcissism

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

Reason Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Original book was reviewed by New England Journal of Medicine: [13]. I don't know if this is enough for notability. Other than this, I mostly just find blogs and other book reviews. Maybe the article could be based on the book, rather than the concept? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this concept could potentially be covered (or, as now, rather "mentioned") on Wikipedia but I oppose it having its own article. Thus, I believe that this article should at some point be deleted, or converted into a redirect to the page where medical narcissism is discussed. For example, if we can find an article discussing the integrity of medicine or something of the sort, this information can be included there as an example of a phenomenon which the author claims (I hope on good grounds) is a feature of clinical mal-practice. To me, it does at leas sound plausible, although that is not a measure of verifiability, of course. Vasaras kruīzi Tallink (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Academy Group of Institutions

AfDs for this article:

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

This group of colleges does not meet the WP:NSCHOOL guidelines because it falls short in several important ways. There isn’t enough coverage from independent and trustworthy sources, which is needed to show that the colleges are notable. Without strong recognition or mention in well-known and reliable publications (as required by WP:RSP), the colleges don’t have the visibility or significance needed to meet notability standards. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. Charlie (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shadia Abu Ghazala School massacre

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

WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS This was covered by a couple of RS the week it happened, nothing in the 15 months since: [14]. As an alternative to deletion it may be notable enough for a mention in Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge with Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Article (when we remove the long quotations) is a stub and would fit nicely into the list referenced. Squatch347 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, that it hasn't had any recent press, is, IMO due to the relentless steam of new massacres, and not that this isn't notable. Huldra (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. What else would we base event notability off of? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The massacre reportedly happened in early December, and began receiving sustained, specific and detailed coverage in separate outlets over time from December 13 to late December including in RS like Reuters and Al Jazeera, and then subsequent coverage in 2024, clearly establishing notability per WP:GNG and WP:DUE. Moreover, these reports were detailed investigative reports, not short news announcements, so WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. This is also why there is significant WP:DUE content on the page sourced to RS that would all be removed if it were to be merged into another article. This is clearly not a justified deletion request, and I am not sure why it has even been suggested. Here are the sources published about it including those not included on the page showing sustained, specific and detailed coverage:

Al Jazeera (13 December 2023)

The New Arab (13 December 2023)

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (13 December 2023)

The Daily Telegraph (14 December 2023)

Reuters (18 December 2023)

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (25 December 2023)

ICHR (26 December 2023)

Lemkin Institute (29 December 2024)

Al Jazeera (26 December 2023)

Al Jazeera (24 January 2024)

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (1 May 2024) Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza or delete. That a massacre happened does not make it notable. Less than a month of coverage is not enough for WP:LASTING in WP:NEVENT. The sources from January and May are passing mentions. A lot of massacres happen all across the world, many are not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 South Carolina House of Representatives District 113 special election

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

State legislative election which only featured a primary and an uncontested general. No non-routine coverage that I could find. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and South Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are examples of non-routine coverage, including detailed coverage of specific candidates filing 1, which shows some notability per WP:NOTROUTINE. There is also various coverage for the prior representative resigning 2, especially how he won the election after. Several of these sources comment on the special election. Routine coverage would be seen as bare reporting of results, also per NOTROUTINE. The other candidate source, 3, goes into detailed coverage of each candidate, which is also not routine. More of the coverage is focused on the primary, of course, and many of these sources are not incorporated into the article, though it could be. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of candidates, in my opinion, is just about the most routine coverage of an election, short of announcing the results. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is not my opinion, since it goes into depth and covers more than just x person is running and nothing else Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ballintra railway station

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

Irish railway station that fails WP:GNG. No reliable and in-depth sources found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammedan Sporting Club Women's cricket team

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

Non-notable team, playing in a league which doesn't hold official LA/T20 status. I don't know in which local competition the team takes place, not even backed up by sources. Fails WP:NCRIC, WP:NTEAMS and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Sports, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Robo^Cric Let's chat 17:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony O'Garro

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept before due to a guideline that no longer exists. 18 games in the USSF Division 2 Professional League isn't a very strong claim to notability, but the main problem is of course the sources. I cannot find anything else than WP:ROUTINE news and several WP:PRIMARY sources affiliated with his college/league or club. Schoolboy cricket or 3.5 GPA is unfortunately not enough for a Wikipedia article either. Geschichte (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Few sources for an athlete who played so little for a defunct team. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BAFTA Award for Best Animation

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

Content split from BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film. It seems the category was discontinued in the early 80s and re-introduced in the 00's (as can be seen here. This is not a valid rationale for splitting out content. It is the same category, and the content should be kept together so that readers have all of the information in the same place. If the article needed to be split out for size reasons (which wasn't the case here) it was important that the article split did not create the false impression they were seperate categories. The split-off version is superfluous in any case now because I have reverted the split on the parent article. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James McMullin

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

A pitcher who pitched only three games in 1887 is not that notable. BEFORE check pulled up only Baseball Reference, SABR and other databases NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 16:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 16:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in this book. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The SABR page is as bare as this is [15], lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Were any newspapers archives searched? The book source listed above by BeanieFan11 seems reasonable to me ("The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball: Biographies of 1,084 Players, Owners, Managers and Umpires"). Literally no MLB player whose full name is known has ever been deleted. Every MLB player ever has had an article since about 2010. The only ones without articles are those whose given names aren't known. Those cases actually used to have their own articles too but a compromise was reached to list them at List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the book source above. I did scour newspapers.com and it definitely took some digging but was able to find a few things there too. Wizardman 00:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruvimbo Samanga

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

Fails to meet notability threshold. Being a member of the MILO Space Science Institute appears to be greatest achievement. Tescoid (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Spaceflight, and Zimbabwe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:51, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Bao

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

Casting directors are rarely ever notable. He has one producer credit and one associate producer credit, no significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Mooonswimmer 10:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scattered mentions in film credits or articles about films are what i find, I don't see any articles directly about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He was interviewed by Hollywood Reporter for his unique casting work in the film Port Authority, in which the casting made history for trans and queer representation. Bluepaperboi (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Casting directors are becoming more notable. Last year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the creation of an Achievement in Casting Oscars, which will be awarded at the 98th Academy Awards for films released in 2025. Damian Bao has more credits listed on his IMDB. I added more references from respectable sources like Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, Paper Magazine, WWD. He was interviewed by Hollywood Reporter for his unique casting work in the film Port Authority, in which the casting made history for trans and queer representation. Other casting directors on Wikipedia have only their IMDB listed as reference. For Damian, you can find articles about him or mentions from actors and other filmmakers crediting him. Bluepaperboi (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salman (myth)

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

This article – an ORPHAN'd stub – has existed for nearly 20 years, and as far as I can tell, during this time it has not had a single reliable source to support its contents. Put simply I don't think this deity is even real – the only source it has right now doesn't mention it at all, and is used to source the existence of another deity that the article claims it might be related to – again, with no source. This might be a WP:HOAX record! Sinclairian (talk) 16:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment original source was https://web.archive.org/web/20160304193127/https://pantheon.org/articles/s/salman.html (blacklisted) "Salman" entry in Encyclopedia Mythica, since removed. Article content seems to confuse Shalman (deity), Shalman (Bible) and Shulmanu. fiveby(zero) 17:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well as Shalim, based on the Solomon claim. Sinclairian (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How's your German? Salman appears to be from inscriptions found at Dadan:
Höfner M. (1970). Die Religionen Altsyriens, Altarabiens und der Mandaer. p. 372. SLMN (Salmän)... cited by Dictionary of deities and demons in the Bible DDD our only reference.

del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Díez, Maria (2016). "The Divine Names at Dadan: A Philological Approach". Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies. 46: 127–8. JSTOR 45163422.

Höfner M. (1965). "Salmän". Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient.
Pretty confusing but maybe a redirect to Shalim? fiveby(zero) 19:20, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the sources are referring to Shalim, not some god named "Salman". Sinclairian (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Höfner in any case does refer to a god under the name of "Salmān". So there's that, even though I don't get yet if that may be the same god as Shalim. Höfner refers back to yet another source on the topic:

Caskel, Werner. Lihyan und Lihyanisch. pp. 46, 48–49, 58.
Thanks for Caskel, i'll try to find a full copy. I'm wondering how Šulmán from William F. Albright (JSTOR 41662002) and S/Šalmänu from Karen Radner (both seemingly covered in the Shulmanu article) are related to our S/Šalmän. Šalmän and Šulmán are described as Syro-Mesopotamian (Becking does cite Albright but not very clear) and Šalmänu described as Akkadian (one source clearly discussing our Šalmän cites Radner.) I don't know if i'm reading the sources correctly or maybe our sources just cannot be definitive as to how they are related. fiveby(zero) 18:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After following the citations. Becking's 'Shalman' entry is a valid reference, same deity, it is just his particular choice of romanization. Maria Höfner from above has: "Salmän (Šalmän)", S with caron (see del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Díez above Figure 4 and "in Dadanitic, the reflex of the Proto-Semitic */š/ and */s/ was pronounced [ʃ]". There probably won't ever be much content, just a list of attestations. I'll add sources to the article. Should probably move back to Salman (deity) tho. fiveby(zero) 06:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my (pretty limited) understanding of the Near East, the Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie is a bit like what Brill's New Pauly is for Greece. Radner's article in the RIA seemingly discusses this figure, and her 1998 work "Der Gott Salmānu („Šulmānu”) und seine Beziehung zur Stadt Dūr-Katlimmu" seems to be devoted to the matter. Seeing as this 1998 paper cites Becking's article in the DDD, they would all seem to be speaking about the same deity. Höfner is cited by Becking, and the two are clearly talking about the same figure. That would mean that, seemingly, we have around half a dozen sources, at least one of which is very detailed; so, there's enough for an article of some form.

As to Shulmanu, looking at the relevant part of the linked source (pp. 388–389), their use of Radner 1998 in discussing the figure means that the two are talking about the same deity, and so (assuming that Radner 1998 and Becking are indeed referring to the same figure) I think all of the sources here are discussing the same figure. If this is indeed the case, Shulmanu should probably be merged here (as I think "Salman" is the more common name, though "Salmanu" would perhaps be best?). – Michael Aurel (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radner cites Becking to say the connection is uncertain and unlikely in her opinion:

Whether Salmānu is to be identified with s/šlmn in Old South Arabic texts, šlmn in Ugaritic texts and (ršp)-šl/rmn in an Egyptian votive stele of the 20th and 21st dynasty[citing Becking] is uncertain and irrelevant to our discussion. However, I consider a connection to be rather unlikely.[also see fn 26 on "extremely speculative attempts to connect to Solomon and Jerusalem]

also:

Following up the aforementioned hypothesis of a pre-Islamic origin for these Arabic names, it makes sense to relate them to theophoric anthroponyms with this Semitic root. Two pertinent deities in the ancient Near Eastern pantheon are the Syro-Mesopotamian god Sulmän (cf. Albright1 932) and the Canaanite deity Salim. The deity S/Šalmän "is attested in Hatra, Palmyra and in North and South Arabian texts" (Becking 1 999 :758). Höfner & Merkel ( 1 965 : 466f.) portray him as a horseman ' s deity; the name form recalls Akkadian Sulmänu.
— Borg, Alexander (2001). "The Enigma of SLM Personal Names among the Bedouin in Sinai and the Negev". Mediterranean Language Review. 13: 175–193. JSTOR medilangrevi.13.2001.0175.

I think that's enough to say Cannanite Salim, Syro-Mesopotamian S/Šalmän and Akkadian S/Šalmänu should be clearly different topics. Still unsure about Šulmán. fiveby(zero) 18:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I did see that... I think my confusion arose from the fact that the Mesopotamian Šulmānu is the same figure as the Aramaic and Hebrew šlmn, just – in Radner's view, at least – not the Ugaritic šlmn (figures with the same name, both Northwest Semitic, but apparently separate...). Becking does also note that there are scholars who have seen the Ugaritic and Egyptian figures as being Shulman, though he only cites Albright for this view (who is presumably out of date), leaving it unclear as to who else (if anyone else) might have been of this opinion.

As to Šulmānu and Šalmānu, the latter is the Assyrian name for the former (that is, the two are the same figure). So there would seem to be two figures here – Šalmānu and S/Šalmän – who are (at least in Radner's view, and I think we can trust her) separate. Timm, I notice, is a little more agnostic on the matter, stating that the Egyptian name might refer to our deity here or to the Akkadian god, and saying that the former may have been widespread already by the Canaanite period. Whatever the case, it's probably sensible to keep the two pages separate, discussing the attestation of our deity here from the Middle Assyrian period through to the Roman/Byzantine era, and moving the page on Shulmanu to a better title; then the degree to which the two are separate can be discussed appropriately at each article. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there more recent works dealing with this subject at all? Wondering if maybe some major strides have been made in the past 10-15 years. Otherwise this seems too muddled to rule on. Sinclairian (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't come across anything in the last 10-15 years specifically, but I think the sources found above are (hopefully) recent enough to be used in the article. From what I've come across, I think these are the main sources here (for this figure in particular):

These are, in essence, Becking and the sources cited by Becking, and I think we can safely say that they're all referring to the deity covered by this page; importantly, I do there's enough here for WP:SIGCOV (per Becking and Timm in particular).

Now, as to the other deity which has been discussed here (the one currently covered by Shulmanu), I have to admit that the degree to which the two are separate still isn't all that clear to me. To give just one example, the above-cited article from del Carmen Hidalgo-Chacón Díez is presumably talking about our "Salman", seeing as she cites Höfner for details on the deity, but then she indicates that this Dadanitic figure has come from the Aramaic name, with Radner stating that the Aramaic name is referring to the Mespotamian deity, but then Radner also states that the two deities are probably separate! Whatever the case, having two separate pages does seem sensible to me, and I think we hopefully have enough to justify keeping the article in question here (Salman (myth)). – Michael Aurel (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for late reply.

Höfner almost certainly falls outside the parameters of WP:RSAGE, and Becking and Timm are both 20+ years old, which, while not necessarily a deal breaker, does give me an iota of pause. If we can find something more recent, we ought to seek it out. Sinclairian (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask in what way you think Becking and Timm (and Höfner as well) are outdated in their views? I also don't see why WP:RSAGE would necessarily prevent us from using Höfner; it contains no explicit limits with respect to the age of sources, and states that older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In what way do you think these sources are inaccurate as a result of such factors? This sort of thing depends on the field in question; in the area of Greek mythology (for instance), it's often necessary to consult the RE (the first volumes of which were produced in the 1890s), because there simply hasn't been produced another encyclopedia which is so comprehensive. – Michael Aurel (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Pipe & Steel

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

All I could find were press releases and announcements regarding the company. Could not find any in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nor does it meet any criterion of WP:NCORP. Sources are all primary or casual mentions. Obvious promotional article is obvious. Ravenswing 20:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom and promotional sources only. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Oorja Distilleries Private Limited

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

Fails GNG. Most of the provided sources are unsupported by given sources. Few press releases and passing mention. Rest are primary sources. The amount of unsourced information provided here also indicates COI & Advertising. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Yokneam attack

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Am open to suitable redirect/merge proposals, but otherwise this seems pretty small beer in the context of the current war. TheLongTone (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Terrorism, and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this proposal is fundamentally flawed and reflects a lack of understanding. Your last sentence, and I quote — "but otherwise this seems pretty small beer in the context of the current war" — reveals a serious misunderstanding of the situation in Israel. The terror attack has no direct connection to Israel's war in Gaza. Attacks like the one that occurred today have been happening in Israel long before the current conflict began. In fact, this is a long-standing modus operandi among certain Arab groups that has persisted for years. Rafi Chazon (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of these kinds of terror attacks on Israeli soil are not part of the war proper. Israel is a country that tends to retrospect on such things, so more of their terror attacks end up being notable per our standards. But this does not seem an especially prominent one. Happened yesterday so kind of difficult to tell what will happen with the coverage (not a good idea to make pages this soon on this kind of thing). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahal Oz Observers Memorial Monument

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

The main Nahal Oz article already contains images of a previous memorial and has coverage of previous attacks, based on only two citations and a somewhat unencyclopedic description text I don't see why this specific memorial should have its own article and not be merged into the Nahal Oz article like the other one. Merging into the Nahal Oz attack article would also be an option since it's a lot more comprehensive than the Nahal Oz one. — jonas (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we use Wikipedia policy here, this topic meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic. In addition to the two WP:RS cited in the article, satisfying WP:GNG, additional WP:RS cover the topic: [16] [17]. Longhornsg (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G7 by Phantomsteve. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhari AlAbdulhadi

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

Largely promotional article; may be written by someone with a WP:COI. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Technology, and Kuwait. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

9M-MRA

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

Non-notable individual aircraft, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia that this plane was the first Boeing 777 of Malaysia Airlines. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 13:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Malaysia. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 13:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: individual airliners very rarely pass WP:GNG, and this one is no exception. No WP:SIGCOV, indeed no coverage at all other than database listings and plane spotter photos, and no sign that the aircraft was ever involved in a noteworthy event that might have offered an ATD (such as a redirect to an airport or airline accidents and incidents section). Rosbif73 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen River

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

No evidence the river exists.

There is no article in the Spanish Wikipedia about the river
Nothing comes up in a Google search
The one external link in the article does not mention the river
Article creator cannot remember why they created the article

Green Montanan (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the map cited in the article mentions the "Casas Grandes-Santa Maria-Carmen" river basin. From the top of the search hits, this talks about "Along permanent streams (in particular, the Rio Casas Grandes, Rio Santa Maria, and Rio Carmen), irrigation farming was ..." [ This] talks about "Five of these small basins have been examined as follows: the Rio Carmen which drains into Lago de Patos, the Rio Santa Maria which drains into Lago de Santa Maria, the Rio Casas Grande which drains into Lago de Guzman, the Rio Castillos which drains into Lago de Castillos", etc. Isn't that confirmation of the river's existence? Geschichte (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's enough yet to establish sufficient notability. The picture is river basins. Given there is a watershed and river system called the Rio del Carmen in Mexico (mentioned additionally, for example, here), it doesn't seem impossible that the original editor saw "Rio Del Carmen" in the picture, translated "Rio" into River and created the article assuming it was a river. However, the article you've found talks abut a stream which suggests it is something somewhat smaller and less significant than a river (and the name Carmen is likely used for hundreds of streams). MarcGarver (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GEOLAND. There have been multiple scholarly articles written on the watershed including [18] and ones looking at the Chihuahua chub. SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marat Ressin

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

Fails WP:BLP, no media sources relevant to the article. Article moved from draft to main space without being checked. Bexaendos (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bexaendos (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article is supported by multiple reliable sources including mainstream media (e.g. Canadian Jewish News, Forbes Kazakhstan, CMDA, Schulich/York University). Subject is notable as the founder of YEDI, a globally ranked accelerator by UBI Global. Sources confirm awards, academic work, and public recognition.

Oleksandr Makarov (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No clear indication of notability. Does not meet WP:GNG criteria.Rimesodom (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Šikula

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

I cannot find any significant coverage of this young Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. The only secondary sources I found are BB Online and News Agency of the Slovak Republic, both of which are brief mentions in squad list. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D.K. Tiwari

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

Being a civil servant doesn't guarantee a Wikipedia article. Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The cited sources only cover routine appointment announcements. Fails WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Jharkhand. Junbeesh (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A state commissioner and chief secretary of a state government passes NPOL. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He holds the significant position of State Election Commissioner of Jharkhand and has also held important positions in the past. Sethi752 (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Chibueze

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No independent reliable coverage; most of the coverage consists of "Chibueze said," "Chibueze told," "Chibueze commented," etc. Cinder painter (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: to PiggyVest, there seems to be more coverage about the compnay than about his person. He's also the founder... Wired seems to be the best source, but it hardly talks about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Does PiggyVest exists? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would likely have to be created. It seems notable, most of the coverage here used for this person is about the company. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institut français du Proche-Orient

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

So much problems with the organization. Fails GNG. WikiMentor01 (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough coverage in French journals [19], [20], [21]. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DWAY-FM

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Contested redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Far_East_Broadcasting_Company#AM/FM_stations Utterly unnotable outside its ownership, and we have no paper trail that it is at all related to DWAS as alleged by its history and this alleged PROMO history. Nathannah • 📮 19:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomicah S. Tillemann

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scant coverage, [22] isn't helpful, most of the sources are about crypto, so this could be seen as PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vasu Raja

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Aviation, Maryland, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Pozin

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

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for persons Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage of him. Better to redirect to Pluto TV and add a section there. Rimesodom (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paravel

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

lacks notable, verifiable sources proving its subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmeen Manzoor

AfDs for this article:

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

Ref 1 is a mention, Ref 2 is tagged as PR, Ref3 is not independent coverage as the coverage given to her was by her own TV station. Ref 4 is a database entry, Ref 5 is a video of her own TV show, Ref 6, 7, 8 merely mention her. Ref 9 is an example of routine coverage (PR again?). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Gheus (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hexana Tri Sasongko

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

Not meeting GNG and Anybio; no reliable sources and no important position held Cinder painter (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamjuli Nepali Village

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

The creator of the page has repeatedly attempted to create this unsourced article under multiple titles that appears to be a very small village with no WP:RS able to be found that would satisfy WP:NSETTLEMENT. This particular title has been draftifyed twice for no sources and has been moved back to the mainspace twice with no changes. I propose to redirect the article to Dimow along with the other attempted creations of this article. cyberdog958^Talk 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Assam. cyberdog958^Talk 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the complete lack of WP:RS. Searches do yield some social media but nothing that can confirm a passing of WP:NPLACE, I'm not sure if it has the legal recognition required for an automatic pass. The creator has had umpteen chances to add at least one source to the article via the moves to draft but has failed to do so. I'm opposed to redirecting to Dimow for now as there is no mention of Shyamjuli on there. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Shyamjuli Nepali is already a redirect to Dimow. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and no coverage on the location of this village. All I can find in the search is Shyamjuli Nepali but nothing on the village. I can not vote to redirect to Dimow because of lack of evidence if such village exists and I do not see any mention of it in page Dimow. RangersRus (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Alumni

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

None of the cited sources have covered this company in-depth. In my WP:BEFORE, I mainly found press releases or similar coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable independent sources found. Does not meet WP:NCORP criteria. Rimesodom (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another tech company trying to reinvent the trophy case and memorial plaques, inevitably with advertising to suck school revenues away from actual education. I also take a very dim view of article hijacking as was done on Wall of fame (disambiguation) to add this idiocy; pinging @Magnolia677: and @MrOllie:, who tried to warn Chase8420138538 (talk · contribs) but were clearly IDHT'ed. Nathannah • 📮 19:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NCORP. --Magnolia677 (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament (2nd nomination)

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

I created this article about a college basketball tournament that will clearly not take place. The tournament organizers announced there would be a 2025 edition in February, and published a schedule. As the start date approached, the organizers blanked the page on their website, where the schedule previously resided. Other than an article in which the Associated Press made an error and and put "CIT" in the article's title instead of "CBC", which is the tournament actually described in the article, the information in this article cannot be supported by WP:RS and cannot be verified. Because many news outlets use content from the Associated Press, the erroneously titled article may be found in other places. Nevertheless, it is not about this tournament. All attempts to find reliable sources that are actually about this tournament have failed. Only the original announcement survives on the Wayback Machine. Since the only source for the subject of this article exists on the Internet Archive and was written by tournament organizers, there is no source at all that is independent of the article's subject, causing the article to fail WP:N. Since the tournament will not take place, it is unlikely anything will be written about it by an independent source in the future. Keeping this article would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, since a tournament that was announced and cancelled the following month and will never take place is neither notable nor worthy of notice. At least one editor has added a speculative statement to the article that may constitute WP:OR. Since this tournament occupied a low rung in the college basketball tournament hierarchy, no independent source is writing about it, much less writing things that support the claims this editor is making. Coining used WP:PROD to propose deletion of this article, since it appeared uncontroversial. The nomination was seconded by RickinBaltimore. Soccerfan10001 removed the proposed deletion tag without leaving an edit summary. There have been other years in which this tournament did not take place, and there are no articles on Wikipedia for those nonexistent editions of the tournament. A mention of the announcement of the 2025 tournament and its blatantly obvious cancellation has been added to the CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament article for completeness, and I made a sattement to that effect at Talk:2025 CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament. Taxman1913 (talk) 07:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Taxman1913 (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A third-tier postseason tournament that was already struggling to which the new College Basketball Crown may have been the finishing blow. It's no wonder the CIT didn't make it this year. Delete per above. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect This is an ex-tournament. It has ceased to be. In all seriousness, a ~~mention on~~ redirect to the main CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament should suffice, there's not a need for a full article on this. I never considered a redirect until the last couple comments. That makes more sense. Changing my argument to a redirect. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament per all above. It is a reasonable search term as being a planned tournament that didn’t happen. Frank Anchor 18:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament If only to allow readers to know its fate; no named teams or schedule, no tournament (and I was curious if it was still happening myself). Nathannah • 📮 19:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament. I created the article, nominated it for deletion and now offer no argument as to why it should not be redirected. Taxman1913 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament : This doesn't need a standalone article as a cancelled event, but can be redirected to the main article as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reubs High School

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

Fails GNG. Doesn't Comply WP: Schools. Given sources are primary. Nothing but a promotional Piece. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and Gujarat. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:37, 24 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) 22:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-Iranian colors

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is based on personal imagination and appears to be original research. The concept of "Pan-Iranian colors" does not exist, and no academic sources support this idea. The sources cited in the article discuss only the modern and historical flags of the country of Iran, which have no connection to other groups considered Iranian due to their language. Sikorki (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sikorki (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources discuss the colours of the flag, but they do not state these are "Pan-Iranian", which seems indeed to be WP:OR. Thus the article's premise (that Pan-Iranian colors exist) is invalid and deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Tohi

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

Likely to fail WP:NMUSIC. KH-1 (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Iran, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While eligible for soft deletion, this is the fifth reincarnation under this title. Let's go for a solid consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can furnish evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of Tohi. Persian BBC did discuss his music but evaluating whether or not that coverage was significant would require analysis by a Persian/Farsi speaker. I suspect that this was a brief introduction to playing a bit of his music. Since he now lives in Los Angeles, English coverage might be expected, but all I found was one highly promotional non-independent item obviously generated by a press release or public relations activity. Cullen328 (talk) 07:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce A. Manning

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

Fails to meet WP:NPROF notability on its face; not a named professor or other criterion. Has been tagged as deficient for over ten years, and not substantially improved in the past decade. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1 and high-cited publications on Google Scholar [23]. But it's weak because I couldn't find much else. He appears to be the chair of his department but that doesn't count as a notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I'm not !voting due to a potential conflict of interest, but I notified Sandstein, who re-created the article, for comment. I'll get back with you all. Bearian (talk) 10:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been notified of this discussion, and indeed, according to the page history, I created this article in 2007 with the edit summary "recreated deleted article on user request". I have no recollection whatsoever as to who made this request to me or why I acted on it. But I agree that the article fails our current inclusion standards because it lacks any third-party references and does not describe why its subject might be notable. Sandstein 14:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think those are good arguments to improve the page substantially, but doesn't necessarily tell us whether to keep or delete. Qflib (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:A7, an "article about a real person ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" is subject to speedy deletion. Sandstein 17:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take much (far less than for a keep at an AfD) to save an article from A7 deletion, and I think the article's "He is an expert in environmental chemistry" is enough.

As for actual notability, please note that WP:PROF is not about third-party references and it explicitly states that third-party references are not required as evidence for WP:PROF notability. (Or, put another way, we have thousands of third-party references, all of those papers that cite Manning's papers, and the problem is not one of having too few sources but rather too many to sift through.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that WP:Prof#C1 is satisfied. The work on arsenates is getting 3-figure and 4-figure citation numbers, which is strong for this fairly low-citation field (environmental geochemistry). The page does need some work to flesh it out some more. Qflib (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person was recently promoted to Department Chair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbspbs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier, that is not relevant for notability. The only academic notability criterion for administrative work, WP:PROF#C6, is only for heads of entire universities. And #C5 is for chairs given to individual professors in recognition of outstanding scholarship, not for chairs of departments. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prof#C1. As for the potential conflict of interest, it's tenuous: the SFSU President and I went to high school. Substantially, his top articles were cited 1,049, 895, 820, 786, and 569 times. He seems to be a very private person, who never grants interviews. I added a couple of sources. The "expert in" sentence in the lead paragraph is sufficient allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree about WP:NPROF#C1. While one paper with > 1K citations is relevant, if you look at his co-author and also here the contrast is stark; Fendorf has an h-factor of 99 and a string of Fellow elections. From this comparison I don't think that this is really a low citation field. If he had some of those Fellow elections then, of course it would be different. However, without them I view it as close but not sustained enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not convinced by the argument for an NACADEMIC criterion 1 pass; according to Scopus, his h-index is 17, which is well below the average range (35-55) for a full professor in the physical sciences; we would need to see substantial evidence beyond citation count for his influence in the field. I don't see any other plausible argument for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants somewhat divided on whether or not the subject satisfies WP:NPROF notability criteria on the basis of level of citations; further comment on this aspect would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes WP:PROF#C1.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space

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

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space has interrelated issues. I'm not able to find other sources than the sole one that the article cites (F. Trèves' book on topological vector spaces). I think inasmuch as it is different from just, multivariable differential calculus, it is not a notable topic—in that sense, it may be seen a content fork, where the page is about an obscure TVS approach to a well-known topic that probably doesn't merit coverage on the article about the latter. It is also written in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, quite closesly paraphrasing Trèves. For example, the portion starting at Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space#Space of Ck functions corresponds tightly to the portion of Trèves starting at Notation 40.1; see an example of this below:

Article:

Suppose $\Omega _{1}\subseteq \Omega _{2}\subseteq \cdots$ is a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of $\Omega$ whose union is $\Omega$ and that satisfy ${\overline {\Omega _{i}}}\subseteq \Omega _{i+1}$ for all $i.$ Suppose that $\left(V_{\alpha }\right)_{\alpha \in A}$ is a basis of neighborhoods of the origin in $Y.$ Then for any integer $\ell <k+1,$ the sets: ${\mathcal {U}}_{i,\ell ,\alpha }:=\left\{f\in C^{k}(\Omega ;Y):\left(\partial /\partial p\right)^{q}f(p)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}p\in \Omega _{i}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq \ell \right\}$ form a basis of neighborhoods of the origin for $C^{k}(\Omega ;Y)$ as $i,$ $\ell ,$ and $\alpha \in A$ vary in all possible ways.

Trèves:

Consider a sequence $\Omega _{1}\subset \Omega _{2}\subset \dots \subset \Omega _{j}\subset \dots$ of relatively compact open subsets of $Y$ whose union is equal to $Y$ , an arbitrary integer $l<k+1$ , a basis of neighborhoods of zero in $E$ , [namely] $\{U_{\alpha }\}$ . As $j,l$ and $\alpha$ vary in all possible ways, the subsets of $C^{k}(Y;E)$ , ${\mathcal {U}}_{j,l,\alpha }=\left\{{\underline {f}}:\left(\partial /\partial y\right)^{q}{\underline {f}}(y)\in U_{\alpha }{\text{ for all }}y\in \Omega _{j}{\text{ and all }}q\in \mathbb {N} ^{n},|q|\leq l\right\},$ form a basis of neighborhoods of zero for the $C^{k}$ topology.

ByVarying | talk 02:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Valimont

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

Random congressional candidate. WP:NPOL says you don't get a Wikipedia page just for running for office, and I don't see how she meets WP:GNG either. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is one week until a notable special election that a large part of the nation is watching, especially this Democrat candidate in what was traditionally "Trump country". I want to add that waiting may provide the article for a congressional representative. The article just needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" -- WP:NPOL. There are U.S. House special elections every year. I don't see the argument for why this one is uniquely notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see coverage outside of the news he's running for office. I'm not even sure what this person did for a living, or any other personal information, as there is no coverage... Long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Draft:Gay Valimont, which existed prior to the creation of this article, pending the outcome of the special election. Per the nominator and Oaktree b, the notability bar is not currently met. I suggest deleting this article and merging its edit history with that of the draft page. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The special election is soon and deleting it would be stupid, also according to the florida department of state, she is leading in escambia county by party registration and prevented republicans from getting majorities of the vote in the other 3 counties, which hasn't been done by a democrat in the district since 1994. There are also several secondary sources on her. 2600:1006:B33F:26F8:1999:16DC:ED14:F0D2 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election If she wins, we can always restore the article history, and if she doesn't, this will likely head to RfD and we can also deal with the draft at that time. Nathannah • 📮 19:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We are within a week until the election. While I believe that most candidates for congress should be redirected to the page about their election, when we are this close to the election, we should refrain from closing the discussion until after the election has concluded to see if the candidate would then pass WP:NPOL. If not, we can then access whether there is a) sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG or there remains a reason to keep a stand-alone page, when most of the candidate's biography could be placed on the page about the special election. --Enos733 (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are several secondary sources and to find them all you have to do is look for them. This special election is notable because she raised millions in trump country. W1luck (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the page to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election for the time being. This is probably just too soon. wizzito | say hello! 23:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Mollusc

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

Non notable salvage vessel. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (basically all I get is historicalrfa.uk which even if it met all the criteria for SIGCOV, which I am uncertain on, is only one source). I tagged this for notability a week ago, but the author simply reverted the tag without comment and declined to improve the article any further, leaving me with no choice but AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that an attempt to draftify on March 1 was promptly reverted without comment by the article's author. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am unable to find any sources myself, but I'm hesitant to support deletion just yet because so many navy vessels do turn out to be notable. If anyone can access The Times archives, which I do not have access to, that might be a good place to check. I thought RFA Belgol wasn't notable, but it turned out to have sufficient coverage in The Times and at the Historical RFA website. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article creator is a new editor. As well as the Historical RFA website used as a reference (from which the article can be expanded greatly), there is also Clydesite. The Times draws a blank this time. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does Historical RFA meet our requirements for a reliable source? I've looked it over and can't find any sort of "about us" beyond two people listed as consultants. A trip to rfaa.uk is more promising, but I'm still not getting a clear sense of who their authors are and if the website counts as a reliable source. Forgive me, I am not shipsandotherthings so I'm not as familiar with sourcing in this area.

If this were a warship, I'd probably have left it in the NPP queue, but a salvage vessel doesn't seem to have automatic notability. Perhaps there's a list article it could be merged to somewhere? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Steinhart

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

Stub article on early 20th century motorcyclist who has no WP:SIGCOV beyond brief mentions in a handful of newspaper articles from the 1910s. Fails WP:GNG. MidnightMayhem 01:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem to have been well-covered in the press, I've tried Gnewspapers above and the LOC newspapers, and there isn't much/anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YachtWay

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bose computer speakers

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

An inadequately sourced list of unnoteworthy products. Some information might be able to be merged to List of Bose home audio products, but I don't see enough WP:SIGCOV to merit doing so, and that article is arguably AFD material itself. MidnightMayhem 01:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; Delete this. Espatie (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Zarov

AfDs for this article:

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

No doubt a good doctor and hospital administrator, but doesn't reach notability criteria. One reference, and that is from a connected source (his workplace); the arguments in the last AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Zarov) still hold. Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor general notability criteria. Klbrain (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Not remotely notable. Time to stop trying. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability criteria. Even a quick search in Russian does not turn up anything academically remarkable - just a lot of repetition using the same phrases all based on either the hospital website or the church press releases (it seems the church runs the hospital). Espatie (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MilkShake

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

Nominated this for speedy deletion but was rejected because one of the former members has a notable page. But beyond that there doesn't appear to be much notability to the girl group. GamerPro64 00:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. GamerPro64 00:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Pornnappan Pornpenpipat (the only member with a presence in Wikipedia). The article doesn't cite any sources or offers any indication of notability. Seems that the group has also been disbanded for almost a decade. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its probably easier to Merge it. GamerPro64 01:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG with a utter lack of WP:SIGCOV. Seeing as there are no sources cited, I'm not really in favor of a merge here. Let'srun (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of trails in Brevard County, Florida

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

Subject does not appear to have significant, independent coverage of the grouping per the WP:LISTN guidelines, and wikipedia is also WP:NOTGUIDE Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, Lists, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how WP:NOTGUIDE applies; trails are treated the same way as roadways, and they are government facilities. The state has the Florida Greenways and Trails System (FGTS), while coverage on county-level trails would no question have a lot of primary sources. What is the issue with the sources and coverage of the various sources? – The Grid (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the best comparison to look at this, is the Featured Article National Trails System.— Maile (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Alvarado

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails gng. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 00:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 00:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Guatemala, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – in addition to the lack of significant coverage, the article is written like a CV rather than an encyclopedic article. –FlyingAce^✈hello 05:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANSER

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

This is an article on a particularly important company, however, it has languished for eight years with only two marginal sources, a situation faced by many B2B and B2G firms. Unfortunately, a thorough WP:BEFORE search fails to find anything that could redeem it, however, this may be frustrated a bit by the non-unique name. I would particularly welcome anyone who can salvage this article and will happily withdraw this nomination if someone can but, I'm afraid, from where I'm sitting right now -- having exhausted a variety of avenues -- deletion is the only realistic outcome. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, or move to draft. I was able to find a reasonable tertiary source (talking more about the president of the entity than the entity itself, but still supporting its history and notability) without too much difficulty on Newspapers.com, which returns enough hits to suggest that sufficient sourcing exists. BD2412 T 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also returned a lot of hits on newspapers.com. When I started to read individual articles, however, they were on things that were not this company. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's "a particularly important company" then it should never have been proposed for deletion! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I would love for us to have a policy or guideline called "Chetsford said it's important", as of now my subjective belief of a person or thing's importance using personal criteria of importance, unfortunately, do not trump our standards to determine WP:N. Perhaps one day that will change. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If this article has languished for years, what new sources have been found to establish notability now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. First, I found more relevant (but not independent) sources using "Analytic Services Inc". For some reason the title was changed from that (the actual organization name) to ANSER at some distant time. I can find many company announcements and, as they are essentially a gov't contractor, gov't documents that name award amounts. I do not find independent sources. They do military and intelligence contracting so it would be surprising to get independent articles about their work. The 3 sources currently listed cover only a fraction of the content of the article, and none are substantial. (The DIANE one is less than a full page.) Lamona (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sourcing for this corporation, Gnews, Newspapers, Journals... The sourcing now in the article isn't helping. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Massallay

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

Declined prod. The added source (the only non database one) is just a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only coverage I could find is a lab manager of the same name in Sierra Leone, it could be him but doesn't really add to notability. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Sierra Leone. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that subject qualified for the Olympics in three different events, which is exceptional for a Sierra Leonean athlete. Finding sources is notoriously difficult for these sorts of athletes, but it's clear that Sierra Leonean newspapers do exist and were operational during the 1980s when Massallay would have been covered. The WP:Verifiable information we have indicates that coverage is out there, but it likely isn't digitized. I would at least attempt making a contact request out to some of those papers before !voting delete. --Habst (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep broader impact than just participating; see example used in the Swiss national museum regarding to Colonialism and the Olympic Games. 109.38.153.179 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source mentioning the Swiss National museum [24] is 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not the Swiss national museum reference pans out, there are actual Sierra Leonean newspapers that were much more likely to have covered the subject. In addition, we have to consider that the SLAA has a qualification process for Olympic selection and by earning so many event selections, Massallay did go beyond just participation at the nation's trials. I think the case for WP:NEXIST here is unusually strong, so I think the keep vote is justified on those grounds. --Habst (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I think the case for WP:NEXIST here is unusually strong" I think the NEXIST argument is particularly weak and no admin has considered it useful when closing these AfDs. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we're both allowed to make our case. Why do you think it's weak? --Habst (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been stated to you several times, by several editors including admins about the weakness of using NEXIST. I do not need to waste my time arguing here. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to clarify on "no admin has considered it useful" -- that's not true at all, the NEXIST rationale has been used to close hundreds of AfDs as keep, see for example a list here. --Habst (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any actual examples of athlete AfDs were closed keep with no sources identified? LibStar (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to sort them by topic or refine the regex, but they are for sure included in that list. (I'm interpreting what you're saying to mean "GNG-indicating sources" because otherwise it wouldn't be applicable in this case anyways because we already have five different WP:V-compliant sources on this subject) --Habst (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide 5 actual examples of athlete AfDs were closed keep with no sources identified, and NEXIST invoked? LibStar (talk) 00:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD to Sierra Leone at the 1980 Summer Olympics#Athletics - preserves history and gives time to look further for sources. Ingratis (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In keeping with WP:NEXIST, it strikes me as inconceivable that there was no coverage at the time in Sierra Leonian newspapers. Yale’s Sierra Leone collection has several 1980s newspapers from Sierra Leone, and I believe they’re even available for interlibrary loan. Anyone in the USA could request a few of the relevant days. I think the real argument for merge/redirect is WP:PAGEDECIDE. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's Hurling Club

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

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 00:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 00:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing SIGCOV. I'm also surprised this article hasn't been PRODed at least once since 2004. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legs (character)

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

A minor character in the DC Comics continuity. A search was difficult given the generic name of the character, but no matter what key words I used, the only coverage of Legs I found was in conjunction with Anarky, and only as TRIVIALMENTIONs at that. There is no coverage on this character beyond that, making him a WP:GNG failure. A possible AtD redirect could be to Anarky, who is the character Legs is most strongly associated with. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 24 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) 00:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose it could also be merged to list of Batman supporting characters but this character is so minor I don't think it is worth it. Rhino131 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bud and Lou

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

A pair of minor characters from the DC Comics continuity. Both have very little coverage, and absolutely no SIGCOV I can find barring ROUTINE announcements of returns. A complete failure of GNG. A possible AtD could be to Harley Quinn, given she is their owner. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a need for a redirect since I can't see anyone wanting to search for two hyenas. Rhino131 (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Porta Potty

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

Non-notable meme, fails GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 00:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorus Rex

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

An incredibly minor character with basically zero reliable, significant coverage I can find. Complete failure of WP:GNG. I do not mind a redirect, but he seems like such a minor character that I'm not sure if he needs to stick around or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:20, 24 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) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: R in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively and redirect to Circus of Strange, with which the character is affiliated according to Comics through Time, p. 1361. Daranios (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Legal Services Authority

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Punjab. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]