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 30	April 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Brian Clifford

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

Declined prod. I could not find any indepth sources to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable with SIGCOV such as this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hunter (Irish swimmer)

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

Declined prod. The added source is a single line mention and not SIGCOV. Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Northern Ireland. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ney

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

Advert of a nonnotable phycho..ist --Altenmann >talk 23:32, 31 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) 00:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. May pass WP:Prof#C1 albeit in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Our article doesn't say this but apparently he founded Mt. Joy College in Sooke BC? [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Xxanthippe's recommendation. His papers and books seem to be relevant enough within the child psychology citation tree, and especially in the pro-life branch of abortion research [2]. Considering he died two months ago [3], this may just need an update as well. We could probably include something about his sailing program [4], or his election candidacy [5], or his religion [6][7] and pro-life activism [8]. Regardless of what I think of the guy (and it's probably close to Altenmann's view, to be frank), that doesn't mean he's not notable. Highresheadphones (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 1 April 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: [9], [10]. 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]
Keep. She received a decent amount of coverage (including in other countries such as Lebanon), including arguably sigcov here (~130 words devoted to her), for being the first woman ever to become the trainer for a men's football team in Mauritanian history, something described as "unprecedented" in Mauritanian sport. That is sufficient for SPORTCRIT. Furthermore, she was among the only athletes from her country at many of the events she participated in, including the Olympics (where she was one of two). Mauritanian archives are extremely poor (and many of the papers are never put online), and barely anything there from 2008 is accessible to us. However, given her status as one of the only Mauritanian female athletes to compete at top-tier competitions, as well as her historic achievements in football, (i) it does not seem reasonable to conclude that there would not be further coverage in the nation's press, and (ii) in the end, I don't feel as if deleting a historic Mauritanian sportswoman such as her improves the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per BeanieFan11, I added her name in Arabic which should helping with finding more sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing found by BeanieFan11, which I would consider SIGCOV to fulfill SPORTCRIT. --Habst (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The provided articles are all lightly reworked versions of the same press release from her club, which is helpfully in a screenshot in the links. Plainly non-independent coverage would not be acceptable for any other subject, why should it be used here? JoelleJay (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If the original press release is rewritten by independent media outlets that consider her accomplishment significant enough to cover themselves, why would that be non-independent? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with using a much higher standard for sports biographies than other articles, but even with that higher standard this coverage is plainly independent. Much like with interviews, if an independent news platform decides to publish a story, that can of course be independent even if the original source for the story is a press release. --Habst (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst and Beaniefan’s analysis of the coverage above. A rewrite of a press release with small amounts of rework can be considered independent. This coverage gets the subject past the GNG threshold, though not by a lot. Frank Anchor 21:57, 31 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!} 23:30, 31 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. [11] where it is initially catalogued and [12] 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)

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]

Merge: The topic is too narrow for a standalone article. Proplyd 133-353 is discussed in a meaningful way in only one scholarly source (Fang et al., 2016). A JSTOR search returns 0 results, and a Google Scholar search has only two additional papers with passing mentions. Per WP:NOTABILITY, this does not justify a separate article. Recommend merging into the broader article on Proplyd as an example. HerBauhaus (talk) 07:13, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Theta1 Orionis C -- seems like this is only discussed in 1 source, but the content is probably worth adding to the article on the star, or the article on the cluster. I assume Theta1 Orionis C is the article on the star it orbits? It seems better to have it on the more specific star article than the cluster article. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might warrant a mention on proplyd, but probably not much of the content can be merged there, as it's not a very exemplary example. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would recomend merging to Rogue planet#List 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, actually Theta1 Orionis C is the central star of the region where Proplyd formed, not the star where it orbits. Note that Proplyd 133-353 is in a young (a few miliion years) region of active star formation. A redirect to Proplyd seems more appropriate. 21 Andromedae (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have 3 or 4 different target articles suggested for a Merge and we have to get consensus on one primary one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The question rests on whether or not there is SIGCOV of this article subject regardless of the Epstein connection. Right now it appears to be No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 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 keep‎. Badfaith nom. We're not wasting community time. Star Mississippi 00:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satellites of Albania

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

This article is not ready. 74x2095725 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be titled "List of satellites of Albania"
There is no description.

74x2095725 (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Literally the first two hits in Gnews [13], [14]. Seems like a useful list. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 31 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.

Taylor Auerbach

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

Contested BLAR of a BLP1E. Laun chba ller 22:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an odd case. Auerbach is notable for quite a few things (click above on Find sources: news), but none of that is in the article. As AfD is not WP:CLEANUP, I have to !vote Keep. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is where it gets complex. The article used to have that stuff in it. And ironically the very latest news source on the article subject is a piece in The Australian yesterday reporting that this article has just been heavily rewritten. Uncle G (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kastrati Group

Jason Damata

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

This absolute WP:REFBOMB of an article fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Source analysis:

PR-driven WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]) that are not WP:SIGCOV of Damata but briefly quoting him on issues in advertising.
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A WP:INTERVIEW: [29].
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE bios/conference session descriptions ([30], [31], [32], [33], [34].
Damata's own writing ([35]).

The only other thing I found in my WP:BEFORE was his own writings on Ad Age - not independent. Not a single thing qualifying. Of note: page creator blocked for sockpuppetry and COI editing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Colorado, and Massachusetts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 31 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]

Delete. I've finished editing the article BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film to reflect the changes that were made at BAFTA Award for Best Animation (table year numbering, etc). So I think BAFTA Award for Best Animation can now be safely deleted. Nick R^Talk 14:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was the award always called the BAFTA Award for Best Animated Film? If so, then this spinoff doesn't make sense because it's making up an award name/category that doesn't exist. If it was ever called the BAFTA Award for Best Animation then that might make a spinoff somewhat justified unless there's coverage stating that the award was specifically retitled to Best Animated Film prior to the shorts spinning off on their own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, if the BAFTA does refer to the older awards as Best Animated Film then that would work against a spinoff. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, it's possible that the BAFTA website's awards archive has changed/simplified the awards' historical names from what they originally were, for convenience in searching.

But I'm not sure how to confirm if that's the case, and if so, what the awards' original names were. The BAFTA website's "Heritage" section contains images of the ceremonies' original brochures from the 1950s to the 1980s. But the only one that shows any interior pages with award names is the first one from 1949; the others only include covers (e.g. the 1950s page). Nick R^Talk 14:24, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not delete, open to Redirect/merge. If content has been copied to the other article this needs to be kept for attribution purposes. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No content has been copied from this article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nick R states in an edit summary "Incorporating changes that were made while the article was at BAFTA Award for Best Animation. ...". That to me says content was copied. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The articles used different date terminology, so Nick R made the article internally consistent. The other changes were formatting fixes. As far as I can see, there isn't any new content that was copied over which requires copyright attribution:
Pre-split version I restored: [36]

Version with Nick's formatting fixes: [37]

I am not sure I agree with the date fix because it makes the article inconsistent with the BAFTA source: https://www.bafta.org/awards/film/animated-film. However, this is not something that is relevant to the deletion discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick R. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would editors arguing for a Deletion be open to a Redirection or even a selective Merge? To what target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 31 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]
Merge to Mohammedan SC (Dhaka), the parent club.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vinegarymass911 The article you linked is a football club, which has no connection with the women's cricket team. I would support a redirect to Dhaka Premier Division Womens Cricket League, as it had been a consensus for a long time to redirect articles on insignificant clubs and teams. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you skim the article you will see the club has seperate wings for cricket and hockey. There is no chance another club in Dhaka would have the same name but is unrelated.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dhaka Premier Division Womens Cricket League per RoboCric. Vestrian24Bio 14:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have proposals for Redirect and Merge but have two different target articles suggested. Can we agree on one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 31 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: [38]. 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]
Huh? 15+ civilians dead, massacred, shouldn't disappear down the memory hole, just because new massacres are committed. That would actually be rewarding the perpetuators for committing more massacres, Huldra (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if either The New Arab or Euro-med Monitor can be treated as non-biased RS for Israel/Palestine information. Al Jazeera is listed as "generally biased" on I/P per the list of perennial sources, but still they may be more credible than these two other sources. Al Jazeera initially reported "at least seven bodies"[39], but in a later mention of the incident describes it as "several were killed".[40]

Whether this article is kept or merged it also needs to be fixed to reflect the best sources, or the consensus of reliable sources, not just using whichever source has the highest number. Bob drobbs (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should use the best sourced possible, and possibly later sources (the first estimates can often be inaccurate). I confess I only looked at what the infobox said, not each of the sources in the article, Huldra (talk) 22:01, 27 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]

Here's the text from the 2024 Al Jazeera article regarding this "massacre". I think this reference actually helps not hurts make the case that this incident is not notable enough that it needs it's own article:

=> "In December 2023, several were killed in attacks on Shadia Abu Ghazala School."[41]

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted that it links back to its earlier report in that sentence where it calls it a massacre and describes what happened in great detail. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 04:59, 26 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]

"That a massacre happened does not make it notable", whaw, just whaw, just try arguing that for some of the massacres that happened on Oct. 7th....Huldra (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - for reasons explained by @Huldra and @Raskolnikov.Rev. It received detailed RS coverage and definitely meets WP:NOTABILITY standards. Events like this typically receive coverage close to when they happen. Notability is established by coverage in RS on the specific events, not continued detailed coverage for the entire time after the event up to the present. By that standard all the pages we have of attacks on Israelis or in literally any other context that received coverage close to when they happened, much less so than in this case, and then never again (such as all of these ones) would also have to be deleted. I assume we'll soon be seeing @Bob drobbs and @PARAKANYAA's deletion requests on those, which incidentally I would also oppose as they did receive specific coverage in some RS when they happened. (How would we assess when continuing coverage can stop for something to still be notable? At what point do we submit an AfD for 9/11, or Battle of Marathon?) Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"By that standard all the pages we have of attacks on Israelis or in literally any other context that received coverage close to when they happened, much less so than in this case, and then never again (such as all of these ones) would also have to be deleted" Yes! People in this topic area on both the Palestinian and Israeli end constantly ignore WP:NEVENT. That is a problem, and any case without continued coverage we should not have a standalone article. Every source here is WP:PRIMARY as news reporting of an incident without much else. We need secondary sources which do not exist.

The assessment varies by case, but less than a month is not enough for anything. We do not get to ignore WP:NEVENT because people in this topic area constantly do. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There tends to be a lull in coverage after a few months which is why it tends to be awkward to AfD after a month or so, but it has been more than a full year where in most cases we can adequately address what we are going to get and there is simply not enough here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza per PARAKANYAA. It is correct that all the sources to date are primary, and that we need secondary sources for purposes of WP:GNG. There is, in fact, a mention in a secondary source:

Saif, Atef Abu (5 March 2024). Don't Look Left: A Diary of Genocide. Beacon Press. ISBN 978-0-8070-1684-8.

However there are only two sentences (see Day 71) that basically say 8 bodies were found there. That is not WP:SIGCOV. The event is a significant one in the context of the war, but we don't have enough to write an article about it. It needs to be placed in its context and discussed in an article that can do it justice, and we have a good article to do that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are WP:PRIMARY, they are all WP:SECONDARY, written by investigative journalists and human rights investigators in reliable sources: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

It is odd to describe investigative reports in reliable sources like Reuters and Al Jazeera as primary. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, so the study of historiography is not required. It is common enough for people to be confused on this issue, but let's be clear: a permanently notable article about an event such as this massacre is a historical account. We are recounting the history of the war and aggression. We are doing history here. But we are not historians. We are writing an encyclopaedia. Historians write the secondary sources, collating the primary sources that are their bread and butter, and producing a synthesis of those sources for the completion of their project. It is the synthesis that is the secondary source. That is the analysis we are looking for - the secondary source from which our tertiary encyclopaedic article can be written. No secondary sources mean no encyclopaedic article can be written (yet).

For more on this from Wikipedia's policy point of view, have a read of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. These are not secondary sources, and yes, they are very close to an event. Let's look at just one. You mention Reuters. The account is here [42] Have a read of it. It says (my emphasis):

GAZA, Dec 18 (Reuters) - When the Israeli soldiers entered the Gaza school where Yousef Khalil was sleeping near his family, they began shooting indiscriminately, killing nine people including children, he said, pointing to bullet-pocked, bloodstained walls.
His account, which Israel's military says it is looking into, comes after the killing of three hostages escaping Hamas in Gaza raised new questions over Israel's rules of engagement in a war that has proven unusually deadly for civilians

Do you see how this is reporting of eyewitness accounts? That the reporters are on the ground, speaking to people, doing what reporters do: reporting? This is what the text books on historiography call a discursive primary source. News reporting is a discursive primary source. See:

Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.^[1]^: 69.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do agree with @Sirfurboy re the (lack of a) number of secondary sources sufficient for a stand-alone article. If we can agree to keep the designation of massacre per the cited RS and retain a significant amount of the information from said sources by making a new section for "massacres" where this would fit well, I would back a merger. What do you think, @Huldra @Raskolnikov.Rev @Lf8u2 ? Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Attacks on schools during the Israeli invasion of Gaza. WP:News article, does not have the lasting secondary coverage required to meet notability on its own. Interesting that we have the usual suspects weighing in because this article supports their political narrative and the classic misunderstanding that journalism is somehow a secondary source. Usually it's just one or the other. The immediate "snow keep" votes are probably the most transparent POV pushing I've seen since the end of ARBPIA5. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is extensive and detailed coverage of this event in reliable sources over an extended period. The volume of information is significant enough that merging it with a general article would necessitate the removal of a substantial amount of well-sourced content. Speaking of transparant POV pushing and advancing one's political narrative since the end of ARBPIA5, @Smallangryplanet pointed out several of numerous existing articles that rely almost exclusively on one or two sources published immediately after the event, containing minimal information. However, those engaging in WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS have not initiated any deletion requests for such articles, and we can infer how they might vote if such requests were proposed. Lf8u2 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tagged all the articles mentioned that rely only on news reports. Although reliance on the existence of other pages to argue this one should be kept is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done you one better and nominated a couple of the more egregious ones for deletion. That'll have to do until tbans are eventually imposed on people who keep creating these articles to score political points, and page creation bans are imposed on people who keep creating articles based on news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting those other articles up for deletion seems super fair. And I don't know if anyone noticed but this particular article was created by someone who was banned for being a sock puppet[43]. I found that out when I tried to notify them of the proposed deletion. Bob drobbs (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all of these fit the same standard we have applied here for deletion, so tags or noms for deletion would be appropriate there too:

List of possibly deletable pages

Alumim massacre, Psyduck music festival massacre, Kissufim massacre, 2022 Jerusalem bombings, Death of Tiran Fero, 2022 Tel Aviv shooting, 2022 Kiryat Arba attack, 2022 Ariel attack, 2022 Bnei Brak shootings, Highway 4 shooting, 2024 Hadera stabbing, 2024 Beersheba bus station shooting, 2024 Tarqumiyah shooting, 2024 Eli shooting, 2024 Ra'anana attack, 2023 Alexandria shooting, 2023 Tunnels Checkpoint shooting, 2023 Eli shooting, 2010 Tapuah Junction stabbing, Murders of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken, Murder of Asher and Yonatan Palmer, 2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing, 2013 Tapuah Junction stabbing, 2013 Bat Yam bus bombing, Murder of Shelly Dadon, October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack, November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack, Murder of Dalia Lemkus, June 2017 Jerusalem attack, Murder of Itamar Ben Gal, 2018 Barkan Industrial Park shooting, Murder of Ori Ansbacher, Patt Junction bus bombing, Davidka Square bus bombing, Gaza Street bus bombing, Liberty Bell Park bus bombing, 2001 Azor attack, 2001 Netanya bombing, 2001 HaSharon Mall suicide bombing, Binyamina train station suicide bombing, Nahariya train station suicide bombing, Camp 80 junction bus 823 attack, 2002 Hadera attack, 2002 Tel Aviv outdoor mall bombing, Karnei Shomron Mall suicide bombing, Seafood Market attack, Matzuva attack, King George Street bombing, Matza restaurant suicide bombing, Yagur Junction bombing, 2002 Mahane Yehuda Market bombing, 2002 Itamar attack, Meron Junction Bus 361 attack, Karkur junction suicide bombing, Sonol gas station bombing, Tel Aviv central bus station massacre, Afula mall bombing, Tzrifin bus stop attack, Geha Interchange bus stop bombing, 2004 Erez Crossing bombing, Carmel Market bombing, Stage Club bombing, July 2005 HaSharon Mall suicide bombing, December 2005 HaSharon Mall suicide bombing, 1st Rosh Ha'ir restaurant bombing, Kedumim bombing, 1990 Cairo bus attack, Ein Netafim ambush, Night of the Pitchforks, Murder of Helena Rapp, Mehola Junction bombing, Killing of Yaron Chen, Netzarim Junction bicycle bombing, Afula axe attack, Beit Lid suicide bombing, Ramat Gan bus bombing, Dizengoff Center suicide bombing, 1997 Mahane Yehuda Market bombings, Murder of Danny Katz, 1989 Purim stabbing attack, 1970 Munich bus attack, Murder of the Aroyo children, Killing of Ami Shachori, 1974 Nahariya attack, 1974 Beit She'an attack, Kfar Yuval hostage crisis, 1976 Yeşilköy airport attack, 1978 Orly Airport attack, Zion Square refrigerator bombing, Ramat Rachel shooting attack, Negev desert road ambush.

Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I would like to see some consistency. IF (and that's a bit IF) we could agree, on say a a min. number of dead? Many of those in the above list have far fewer dead than this massacre. Huldra (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is properly sourced and the event seems notable. Looks like it was also the subject of investigations and covered for a while after it happened. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is not a SNOW situation so please stop declaring it one. There are quite a few editors arguing for a Merge so a quick closure is not in the cards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 31 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: [44]. 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]

Would something like Medical ethics be a good target? Conyo14 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion! I will try to take some time to consider the article's suitability for the purpose, and in case it is the best one, I will try to locate where in the article a section for "medical narcissism" could be included. Hopefully we can have this resolved so that we can continue on the path of making Wikipedia an encyclopedia of high quality. BlockArranger (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per the policy on neologisms. Just because someone coined a word doesn't mean it deserves an article. I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning in the Medical ethics article, but I don't know it's not, so that doesn't sound like a terrible idea as long as this article doesn't stay. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For information to everyone this concerns, I want to announce that I have merged the content into the article about Medical error, specifically the section concerning Disclosing mistakes => to patients, under Mitigation. To me, this seems like a reasonable place to merge it into, as medical errors are specifically addressed in the author Banja's book, and medical narcissism is defined as having to do with disclosure specifically to patients. I believe that Medical ethics would not be as suitable as it discusses the abstract, ethical, philosophical aspects which are important to consider, but not as centered on the practical matters such as what is discussed in the Medical error article. Hopefully, this will work out as a solution which is also accepted by the broader community maintaining the ME article. BlockArranger (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If spotted last week, this AFD discussion should have been a procedural close as Keep as there is no deletion rationale nor nomination. But people have commented and so I'm going to give this discussion more time. I favor ATD when appropriate but we have more than one suggested target article for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to explain that when I originally suggested that this article should be done something about, such as merger into some other article, I may have missed some crucial step. Anyway, I have meant to make it clear that the article in question is not much more than a short description of what a certain not very notable neologism means. I have suggested its incorporation into Medical error as per above and in other comments in this discussion. BlockArranger (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Medical error#To patients seems like a fine target too. BlockArranger has already merged anything viable from this article. So a redirect would be my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 23:49, 31 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]

Delete: The track doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews or artist commentary just give brief mentions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unlike the other commenter's statement, the article already includes a source whose primary subject is the song beyond a brief mention: Elle. There are also other sources independently discussing the song that can be incorporated as well such as Uproxx and Capital FM. Flabshoe1 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 31 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]

Delete The track doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews just give brief mentions.

MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge its history to Eternal Sunshine (Ariana Grande song), then redirect it to Eternal Sunshine (album), then redirect Eternal Sunshine (song) to Eternal Sunshine as there is another song with this title. As per nom, the article doesn't show independence from the parent album. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 31 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]

Keep Not only does it have numerous sources independent of the artist and label, but the song has charted in multiple international markets. This should pass WP:NSONG. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is only a single source that is about the song itself. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The track doesn't meet WP:NSONGS when the only credible sources outside of album reviews or producer commentary just give brief mentions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 31 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]
Keep - all articles are related to independent media coverage in the industry and do not intend to promote the person itself or his business. They also display factual references to the person’s work and achievements. 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all sources are independent and non biased and not promotional 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking down each source:

[45] (Dirtwheelsmag) - Mostly good, however "The project is all about power and massive torque. In the powersports arena, nobody expects electric power to replace traditional gas engines. It’s just one more option that will lead to new sport quad development and racing opportunities. Keep up with Walsh Race Craft’s latest creations online at WalshRC.com" is phrased a little promotionally, in my opinion. Not a bad source, but not the greatest.
[46] (WalshRC.com) - Primary source.
[47] (ATV Scene) - I would consider this as a primary source since it only covers links to YouTube interviews.
[48] (Dirtwheelsmag) - This is a review and/or advertisement of a product. I wouldn't say that it qualifies as a secondary source for its creator.
[49] (Moultrie Observer) - Decent secondary source, but brief.

With that, we have one iffy secondary source (if it can be considered that), and one brief article/interview about the subject winning an award. That is not enough for WP:GNG.

(I also checked for any sources not included in the article, and was unable to find any). GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my argument at his company's AFD page. Non-primary sources seem biased and are likely promotional. However, if the company's article is not deleted (unlikely), then I would support a merge/redirect to it.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 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]
Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
REASON? 2001:8A0:FA64:2600:9CEF:9F65:CE46:DC42 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - as Galactic said, the non-primary sources have a bias towards the company, and lack independence of the subject. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all sources are independent and non biased and not promotional 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge with personal page. All sources seem non promotional and non biased. Makes sense to merge with personal page 188.83.21.87 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although somewhat weak. Ignoring the SPA argument, all non-primary sources seem to be have a bias towards the company, and are probably not independent of the subject. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 31 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]

Leaning keep: There is one source in the article which is unambiguously about the song itself (The Fader) and one which I would argue contains enough stuff about the song for it to bemore than just a mere mention (Vulture). I also found this article which handles the song similarly to the Vulture article. These, combined with the fact that the song has charted and been certified, make me lean towards keeping the article, as its subject appears marginally notable. Leafy46 (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Palmquist

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCER since reliable sources are clearly lacking, and a WP:BEFORE does not show any promising results either. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has similar sources to other producer pages on wikipedia, why are you trying to delete for now reason? Dakota Gerard (talk) 23:10, 31 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 incorrect nomination. Enough! Bludgeoning this redirect, which is not an article, with every deletion nomination apart from the right one is not on. Uncle G (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

Юлия Фельдман

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

This is English Wikipedia, not some other Wikipedia all of the Articles here should be in English and this is not even a common phrase that English speakers say 54rt678 (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, This is a foreign language redirect in Russian to a person with Russian heritage. What is the purpose of this AfD exactly? Iljhgtn (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe this nomination might have been in error? But I am !voting "keep" then just in case it was not. This is a standard redirect of a foreign language transliteration, as the template in the redirect makes clear. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This is an AfD because that is for a russian wiki. it is not a common english phrase 54rt678 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the foreign language equivalent for a foreign language subject. That is exactly the purpose of a redirect in this case. Please familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia before nominating any others. I see you have made only around 1,000 edits as of this writing and your nomination of this article. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:58, 31 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.

Ani Vardanyan

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. On-line searches yielded nothing Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Armenia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Lebedeva

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. On-line searches yielded nothing. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Armenia, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaqua

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

Zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable sources. Redirect was reverted with the rationale, "Bonaqua isn't a really known brand and it doesn't have major companies as sources. There are plenty similar pages with less in depth analysis and evidence. I believe Onel shouldn't just delete someone's entire page based of their own personal opinion. The facts are as accurate as they get, it's literally from Swire's own website. With this said, DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE AGAIN." However, without in-depth sourcing, does not pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WYJJ-LD

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

Another HC2 LPTV; more WP:OR slop by User:K-Johnson 127; maybe get them to write more clearly? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Outside the few years DTV America remembered they had an obligation to carry programming, post-2019 this is just another automated HC2 station airing content to nobody. The MyNet affiliation is easily noted as an aside on WNBJ-LD. Nathannah • 📮 22:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No SIGCOV or other indications of notability. @Mvcg66b3r perhaps you should try engaging with @K-Johnson 127 directly instead of just dragging them in your nom? nf utvol (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: All I have to add that hasn’t already been said is that this nominally survived a failed bundled nomination two years ago. (I’m not even sure the partnership with the owner of WYJJ (FM) that led to the shared call sign got enough coverage to merit any mention anywhere.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Klein

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

On behalf of the article subject, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, please delete this article as its subject believes himself to be a private, non-notable person who does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO and that he is not a notable musician per WP:NMG. See VRT ticket 2025032810007522. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per pt.wiki article. There is WP:SIGCOV [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. This is in Brazilian sources, and from what I've seen it is also relevant in Italy and the United States. Svartner (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petroleum News

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

This weekly newspaper is not notable as an article because no sources can be found for this topic. It also doesnt have enough coverage as well. I have attempted to find sources, but none came out. It's only one sourced. There's just some problems with the research shown in the article. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Chains

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

Novel that fails WP:GNG WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Arts. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article notes three independent reviews, so it meets WP:GNG. BOZ (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now quotes two separate reviews. If anyone has a copy of Vector #188, a third review could be added as well. Three reviews easily meets notability guidelines. Guinness323 (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nanochannel glass materials

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

Article about arrays of nanoscale glass holes; not to be confused with Nanopipettes or Anodized Aluminum Oxide. Article is based upon a NRL development or patent, and a single NRL science paper where these were used as a template for deposition.^[1] While that is an interesting paper, it did not get adopted by the community, having 86 total cites as of March 2025, which is not large for a high-profile journal. No indications of general notability, certainly not compared to nanopipettes and other types of nanoscale piping in microfluidics or similar systems which are different. Hence fails notability criteria for retention.

Article was PROD'd by nominator, with a PROD2 by User:Bieran. Prod was opposed by User:Mark viking who added sources on nanoscale glass pipettes, and argued (see Talk) that the article is about nanoscale channels, which it was not. Note that the sources added are for single pipettes, not arrays. Options are:

Delete
Keep
Redirect to nanopipette, i.e. keeping such pipettes as a topic that is notable, but acknowledging that what is currently here is different, i.e. abandoning the array concept. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would think a merge best here. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect is acceptable to me. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electroimpact

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

Does not have significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT or WP:CORPDEPTH. There is some local press from the Everett Herald but nothing that appears worthy of notice outside of the Seattle area with the exception of limited press about a civil rights settlement. I started a WP:HEY but don't want to continue based on notability. CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, United States of America, and Washington. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems only of local interest. Really more of an article on the non-notable founder than on the company. Finding no non-local coverage at all on products or business of the company. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Electroimpact has received significant coverage in the Seattle times, a good portion of it before the racism from the CEO. They are a major supplier for Boeing, which has been noted in news sources. Not sure if there are specific guidelines on size of area to be considered notable, but the greater Seattle area is plenty large with about 4 million people in it. Even if it's just that area that's interest, >1% of the US population is still quite a few people. I do think the article could be improved with sources about more than the CEO being racist.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your !vote. Hoping to get some clarification on your reasoning for keep. I realize it can be difficult for experienced users to navigate WP:NCORP, let alone someone new to editing such pages. There is no guideline about size of area. It doesn't matter how many people there are in Seattle. A reliable source is a reliable source regardless on the size of the city. That being said, the sources are still mainly local. We can sometimes use regional sources but there aren't any here that come close to WP:ORGCRIT that are outside of the area. You also state that it can be improved by using other sources. If you can provide those sources I would be happy to take a look as the page would need extensive cleanup for NPOV should it be kept. Regarding the comment about the CEO, be careful about naming someone. There is a lot that can be deduced about the subject from the sources, but it is not our job as Wikipedia editors to label that person as such unless it is widely published in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Leebaert

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XL Bully Cat

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

Isn't notable, just a bit of run of the mill news coverage. No coverage in breed encyclopaedias nor any results on scholar. Bambino is the actual breed but that was found to not be notable at a previous AFD. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Fainu

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:SPORTCRIT and fails WP:SPORTBASIC at this point in time. A similar AfD resulted in draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Oceania. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Tuivaiti

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

Contested draftification which fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:SPORTCRIT at this point in time based on a lack of playing time and WP:SIGCOV. A similar AfD was held for Alex Lobb here, which resulted in draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and New Zealand. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Popoola

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

Non-league footballer who played two EFL trophy matches. Sources provided are limited to routine transfer announcements from employers. Absence of notability. C 679 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. C 679 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 17:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Storage Personal Computing

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

Non-notable IBM service. Fails WP:GNG, i was unable to find any sources about it expect one small 40-year old German article. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources which meet WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Tenshi! (Talk page) 20:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Execution of Sambhaji

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

I'm opting for AfD with the proposal of redirect because it was lately challenged [55], but I can't see grounds on which this article could stand. Possible AI creation as raised by many editors (mainly HerakliosJulianus) also I found that Sambhaji#Capture, torture and execution already contains more contents than Execution of Sambhaji#Execution. So redirecting seems to be the only reasonable option. Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Royalty and nobility, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I cannot make sense out of this nomination. There are a vast number of academic sources that have significantly provided enough coverage to this subject. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WCZU-LD

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

Original research? No encyclopedic tone? Largely edited by one person. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Don’t be thrown off by the length of the article and the former MyNetworkTV affiliation: this is simply another 2010s-started DTV America/HC2/Innovate station with all the usual lack of significant coverage. Like most of the others, this nominally survived a failed bundled nomination two years ago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Per Wcquiddich; written long ago in hopes that this would be an average local independent station until HC2 got its hands on it and it became a station airing networks already on FAST providers to an audience of few, with HC2/Innovate hoping for a spectrum windfall that's likely not coming. Even if this was a functional television station, the details about TV show marathons past and day-to-day cataloging of the status of DrTV and UPN's availability in Bowling Green makes the average reader feel lost and isn't sourced at all. Nathannah • 📮 22:11, 31 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]

Israel is also conducting a war in other parts of Palestine. So this is an incident in the current war.TheLongTone (talk) 15:47, 26 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]

Delete, but not because it is overshadowed by the war but because I doubt this will fulfill NEVENT. If a merge target is suggested I would likely support that. If this proves notable in the future I would support undeletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't understand the rationale behind this nomination, it is a notable terrorist attack which has RS discussing it. Just because it tragically happens often, and the same country it happens in is also fighting a war, it makes this less important somehow? If this would happen in London or New York you wouldn't question its notability. Maybe you should delete Donald Trump, it seems pretty beer in the context of American politics. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a consensus for this sort of article. It's not the first time it's happened. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Instead of outright deletion, it can at least get a mention in List of vehicle-ramming attacks. Though to Yeshivish's point about setting precedent, maybe it would make sense to create an article with a paragraph or so about each of the somewhat notable vehicle ramming attacks in Israel? --Bob drobbs (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:News article for an event that is not the subject of sustained secondary coverage. Not opposed to a merge of some sort, though I don't know about the vehicle-ramming target since the fatality was from gunfire. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:36, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Lord Mountbutter (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Welle Bangla

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

I do not think there is any necessity whatsoever to create a separate article under the name "Deutsche Welle Bangla." The reason is that Deutsche Welle is currently available in 32 languages, and none of these are perhaps notable individually. If needed, it would be best to create a table within the Deutsche Welle article listing the 32 languages in which the publication is available and writing a brief line about them. Somajyoti ✉ 16:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Somajyoti ✉ 16:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh, West Bengal, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kakan Rajputs

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

this is an orphan article, plus there are WP:MOS and grammar errors galore here too Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this Wikipedia page(Kakan rajputs) and have been actively contributing my time and knowledge to it since its inception. I have made frequent additions and have been consistently involved in its editing. The grammar errors present are not from our side but from other contributors/editors, and my team is actively working to correct them. I assure you that these issues will be addressed, and we will closely monitor the page moving forward. Therefore, I sincerely request you to withdraw this deletion request, as we are committed to maintaining and improving the page. ZypheriZ (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that an article is an orphan is in no way a reason for deletion. At worst, an orphan is just an article created by a less experienced editor who does not understand that it is important to provide sources, links or even categories, or by a more experienced editor who simply cannot find any other pages that can link to the subject. Or it may be a relatively new article that the creator is planning to link from other pages, but has not identified other articles or otherwise carried out that task yet (a page generally should not be tagged as an orphan until it has been around for a little while). Being an orphan is not a reason to delete an article, only to fix whatever issues it has." This is based on Wikipedia's own guidelines. Your claim that the article is orphaned is not a valid reason for deletion. I request you to withdraw your deletion request. ZypheriZ (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say, but I still feel like you should have created a draft of this page and perfected it before submitting it for creation. I'll let others decide whether or not the article should be deleted. Additionally, who is your team that you mentioned above? Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our team will be more mindful of these issues moving forward. However frequent edits from other contributors have caused difficulties, as they often add inaccurate or unnecessary information. This requires us to make constant revisions and corrections, which you can verify in the page's revision history. I appreciate your understanding. Thank you. ZypheriZ (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have corrected a few grammatical errors that we found. However, we want to again emphasize that most of these errors were done by other contributors who edited the page, adding both inaccurate informations and grammatical mistakes. This can be verified in the revision history of the page. Our team will keep improving and fixing errors, but we hope there won't be more inaccurate edits. If there are, we'll take care of them. ZypheriZ (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has issues, but improvements have been promised. If the contributors actively fix grammar and add proper references, deletion might be unnecessary. Wikipedia encourages improvement over deletion when feasible. However, if substantial progress isn't made soon, alternative actions like merging or draftifying could be considered. – PriyasVP (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless a better rationale is provided. MOS & grammar issues aren't reasons for deletion. RachelTensions (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as pointed out by RachelTensions for WP:DEL-REASON, feel free to throw a {{copyedit}} tag on it and continue tagging with {{citation needed}} as needed. Drafting author has already been warned that this falls under WP:GS/SASG so it's not a problem to keep an eye on the article, but this might have been premature. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Light train

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

Appears to be an original WP:NEOlogism. None of the cited sources use the term "light train" as defined in the article, and there do not appear to be other sources that describe the term as such. It appears to combine two separate concepts: lightweight trains from the mid-20th century, and a unrelated variety of trains in operation in Europe which are not permitted for regular operation in the United States. Sub31k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's probably room for an article about the mid-20th-century lightweight trains as a split from streamliner, but this seems to be original research connecting that with modern rolling stock. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Talk:Light train#Neologism didn't clear matters up at all. The term may be used in Dutch (Dutch: Lichtgewichttrein), but I'm unaware of a corresponding concept in English or German. Compare the articles in the different-language Wikipedias for BLS RABe 525. The French article fr:Système ferroviaire léger isn't about the same concept at all, but rather about light rail networks in general. That's the result of this edit on Wikidata from 2024. Not our problem, but worth considering if there's a better match. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the French article fr:Système ferroviaire léger does not even mention the French translation for "light rail" once.
KatVanHuis (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I previously ran into this in New Page Patrol and was unsure as to how to handle it. From reading the talk page discussion, it seems this is indeed a neologism and should be deleted absent clear evidence there is such a term. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeProtect

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

Fails WP:NORG. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Petr

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

He played 86 minutes in the highest tier of Slovakia before disappearing in 2023. My secondary searches are limited to passing mentions and an image caption. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 31 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Absolutiva (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Berry

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

Fails WP:GNG, did not find any WP:SIGCOV. Absolutiva (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva (talk) 14:46, 31 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.

Fail-safes in nanotechnology

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

Page that fails WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:Notability. It combines a number of different topics, with original research suggestions for ways to prevent malfunctions. The page contains 8 sources, but only [6] is claimed to be related to failsafe and reading of the source only has “In the future, if our molecular automaton is sent on a medical mission, it can be programmed to exercise similar judgment”, i.e. crystal ball. When this page was created in 2008, perhaps there was discussion of building failsafe into future nanotech, although I am dubious; for certain this neologism has not been adopted by the community. Topics such as self-healing materials, self-healing hydrogels, self-healing concrete (and a few more) as well as fault tolerance are well established, and should not be confused with this neologism.

Curtesy ping of User:Bearian. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Some folks want to eliminate all of these poorly sourced articles on nanotechnology, some want to leave them all here. I'm taking them on a case-by-case basis. Everyone knows that we have never published original content. There's lots of places to publish this. We're a charity under attack and we can't stray from our missions. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinion about the nano articles. If repairable and notable they are fine, and should have sources added and be updated although that is non-trivial work. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Subject is clearly entirely speculative and not suitable for inclusion. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...not only because of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, but because of total misrepresentation of the sources. Source 1 is cited for the claim "It is possible to scale down macro-scale fail-safe principles and devices for similar applications at the nano-scale", but the cited reference says absolutely nothing remotely related to this. Source 2 is for the statement "These robots would have the ability to construct other nanostructures or perform medical procedures, and will be introduced into the body via an injection". "Robots" are never mentioned in the cited article, and "inject" appears once, in a passage about introducing magnetic fluids to an artery supplying a particular tissue. This article is an irredeemable disaster. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapyard (mixtape)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures

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

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (commonly BIPM, per its name in French) is undoubtedly notable but this article does not show that the foundation of the Bureau was a separately notable event, and notability is not inherited. Merging into International Bureau of Weights and Measures would not be appropriate; much of this content has previouly been removed from that article, and/or Metre and History of the metre, as excessively detailed, failing WP:DUE, off-topic, digressive and florid. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and Science. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be a POV fork that combines things that could be included in International Bureau of Weights and Measures#History and then History of the metre. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would undo Special:Diff/1282631916 by the nominator and put it back in? We're here because the nominator blanked all of this from the main article's history section saying it was off-topic, it was spun out to a sub-article (presumably to be on-topic in its own article), and then the nominator nominated the sub-article for deletion. Don't be fooled by the passive voice in the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is that the centennial history of the BIPM published in 1975 was 220-some pages long, and yet our article had a mere 4 paragraphs of history. The coverage in the 1883-09-13 edition of Nature that was only on the founding of the organization, who agreed to it, who paid for it, where the buildings were built, and what was in the buildings, was longer than our entire main article. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fist, do NOT have duplicative content that is identical and redundant across pages. I think some of this issue comes from the ongoing edits and reversion between NebY and Charles Inigo across multiple pages so I'm not sure what each intends for them to look like, but Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures#Emerging geodetic standard and History of the metre#Emerging geodetic standard should not be on two pages lke this. The main BIPM article is not long enough to warrant a subarticle and its history should absolutely be longer – A lot of this information is very relevant and should be included there. However, I agree that some of this is about the history of the meter rather than specifcially the BIPM so that would belong on that page rather than this one. I disagree that it's excessively florid or detailed, it could use copyediting or trimming but should be kept somewhere rather than deleted altogether. Reywas92^Talk
I tried to insert a lot of informations in History of the metre, but other contributors belived this article sould rather focuse on successive definitions of the metre. In order to avoid deletion of material, I copied part of it in International Association of Geodesy and to Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain.
Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain shows that the arc measurement which served to define the length of the metre was preceded by a geodetic survey aiming at joinning Paris and Greenwich observatories and was followed by remeasurment and extension of the arc meridian through Spain and Algeria at the time when Greenwich was adopted as the Prime meridian.
International Association of Geodesy explains the role of geodetic surveys and gravimetry in determining the figure of the Earth which was the aim of the French Acacdemy of Sciences in addition of determining the length of the metre.
When I created Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures the introductory section was larger and I copy-pasted it in the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures with links to various articles including Arc measurement of Delambre and Méchain and Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
I then copy pasted material from History of the metre where it is considered by other contributors as an excessive amount of intricate details. I copied and pasted rather than cut and paste as I anticipated that Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures could be deleted.
In conclusion, I propose:
- to keep the extended version of the introductory section of Fondation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures as the content of the History section of International Bureau of Weights and Measures,
- to keep the section Emerging geodetic standard in Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures and
- to delete this section in History of the metre, which should focuse on the successive definitions of the metre accordingly to the wish of other contributors of this article. Charles Inigo (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics in Asia

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

I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Asia. Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirecting to a non-existent article is not a viable option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March for Our Lives Seattle

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

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. The coverage of this protest are just local routine news. After the protest ended, all coverage stopped completely. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is exactly the place to document protests. We have news media documentation of 50,000 people marching through the streets demanding rights and with photos in Wikimedia Commons. There are statements by major public figures for this, and those are documented in media as well.

If guidance in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT are not defining specific criteria for when to keep Wikipedia articles on protests, then we should develop special notability criteria for keeping them.

It is the nature of protests to have journalist coverage when they happen, then only be discussed thereafter as part of the aggregate of political protest around the fundamental issue. This was a March for Our Lives protest, so even if this was just in Seattle and just in 2018, all following media about March for our Lives is still reporting outcomes from this protest. We need as many local summaries of multi-site, multi-year protests as we can capture as Wikipedia articles. I see that we have no dedicated guidance at WP:PROTEST - perhaps we need some guidance. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with March for Our Lives and/or List of protests in Seattle. The specific Seattle protest does not meet the lasting coverage criteria of WP:NEVENT. I think that similar protests could be merged into a listicle based on the available coverage and frequency of these events. Sounder Bruce 21:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most of the coverage may be "local", but the Seattle area has a population >1% of the US total. I agree with as well that Wikipedia is a place to document the local nature of wide-ranging protests especially since it is uncensored.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:OKFORK of March for Our Lives given that article's size. As for satisfying WP:NEVENT, sources on lasting effect: a poet's reflection after witnessing the Seattle march,^[2] an art educator's reflection of children's protest with reference to the Seattle march^[3], follow up protests in 2022 in Everett WA (north of Seattle),^[4] one year later, Reuters has photo story on the March for Our Lives, including Seattle.^[5] Finally, the 2018 Washington Initiative 1639 on raising the age to 21 for the purchase of assault weapons passed 59%/41% in November 2018 - this CNN piece directly links the March for Our Lives protests in Washington state to the initiative's citizen sponsor, Paul Kramer and the yes vote (see quote in footnote).^[6]

References

^ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68
^ Cloud, Abigail; Faulkner, Sandra L. (2 December 2019). Poetic Inquiry as Social Justice and Political Response. Vernon Press. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-1-62273-752-9.
^ Kraehe, Amelia M. (4 July 2018). "Outside In and Inside Out: Space, Place, and the Where of Art Education". Art Education. 71 (4): 4–7. doi:10.1080/00043125.2018.1467709.
^ Dowling, Jennifer (12 June 2022). "'March for Our Lives' protest led by students in Everett". FOX 13 Seattle.
^ "Flashback: Students lead fight for gun control". Reuters. 19 February 2019.
^ Andone, Dakin (11 February 2019). "Parkland students turned from victims to activists and inspired a wave of new gun safety laws". CNN. Kramer believes many voters were weary of gun violence, and the shooting in Parkland and the subsequent calls for change left an impression on them. He recalled how local teenagers in his hometown of Mukilteo followed the footsteps of Marjory Stoneman Douglas students and put on their own student-led rally against gun violence last spring. "People were still very much aware of that and that informed their decision when casting their vote on the ballot in November," he said. "The March For Our Lives movement made an impact in Washington state."

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note, this piece, already cited in the article, connects the protest to the history of student radicalism in Seattle. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG and OKFORK. There's clearly in-depth coverage in plenty of reliable sources and Goldsztajn's findings help demonstrate that coverage is not just routine. This article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. Oppose merge to parent article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:59, 31 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]

Keep: I do not agree with your assertion about a lack of noteworthiness. Also, the topic is substantially different from multivariate calculus. Topological vector spaces are certainly noteworthy, and since differentiability is a corner stone in analysis, it is clear, that differentiable functions with values in such spaces are also noteworthy. The classical definition of differentiability is based on norms (see, for instance, Jean Dieudonné's textbook "Foundations of Modern Analysis"). This classical approach does not work for functions with values in topological vector spaces. So this article has very little to do with multivariate differential calculus. It is a keep. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I say notable, I'm talking about WP:N. Being tangentially related to notable topics doesn't make something notable; substantial coverage in RS does. ByVarying | talk 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Dhafra Private School

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

not notable and doesn't pass WP:GNG 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Arab Emirates. Shellwood (talk) 12:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wilson (missionary)

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

This article looks at first glance very well referenced, but looking more closely, I fear there are some major problems.

Hargrove 1809" doesn't seem to mention Charles Wilson?[56]
Sibree 1923 is a publication by the "London Missionary Society", so not an independent source
Davies 1808 and Davies 1810 are "'publications" from the "Records of the London Missionary Society" and not even really published, it is a microfilmed manuscript
Wharton & Im Thurn 1925 is this source which has one primary mention of Charles Wilson as a co-signatory of a letter
"London Missionary Society 1818a" is obviously a publication from the LMS again

So nothing in the article is actually based on reliable, independent sources about Charles Wilson, which indicates the lack of notability for this missionary (and the text gives no indication why he would be considered notable either). Fram (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, England, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lovett's 1899 History of the London Missionary Society 1795–1895 has (on p.176) Charles Wilson captured on the "Duff" before going out again on the "Royal Admiral" in 1801. So that's how the Hargrove source, an account of the "Duff" voyage, gets joined in. For a fact-poor obituary of Wilson (which outright tells us that it isn't going to tell us anything about the period between 1801 and this person retiring in 1842 and dying in 1857) that however also joins the dots for the "Duff", see the July 1858 Missionary Chronicle, p. 453. There's another obituary in the 1858-09-24 The Friend (v.8 no.9 p.65) which tells is that this person's work "extended over a period of near sixty years", and says not one thing about those 56 years, also stopping the facts at 1801.
That said, perhaps we could have left the article for more than 30 minutes of writing to see how the other 26 sources were going to pan out. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from other articles like this one, there was little inclination to keep on working on the article. Many of these other sources were from the LMS as well anyway, and other ones don't really have much on Charles Wilson either (e.g. [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a6a00647-248f-40a2-beed-87e632163f33/content this one]). The two sources you mention aren't independent either, of course. Fram (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram, I'll be brief because I have other fish to fry: don't forget to take your pills! Duponnerie (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram, I think you are a great idiot. Don't be angry—tomorrow, April 1st, is approaching! You won’t be able to erase the life of this missionary, who labored for 56 years in the Pacific, with just a banner. It does not seem that he was an alien or that his life was empty. Instead of imposing your imperialism, you should work to make the article more credible by adding sources. I found this on the internet to put an end to this masquerade because I noticed that you were in command of an entire squadron of idiots. Don't be mad—April 1st is coming soon! Here is the source:https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SAMREP18571001.2.6

To conclude, don't forget to take your pills and share them with your friends. Have a great day— the more, the merrier! Duponnerie (talk) 00:38, 1 April 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]

Keep - Vasu Raja was the high-profile architect of the world's largest airline's commercial strategy including a unique take on distribution for two years before being forced out and continues to be a notable industry expert. He has sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline and curious whether a search was done before nomination. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:58, 28 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) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Seems to be written by a Senior Contributor (which I think is a staff position), Forbes [57]. Not an extensive amount of sourcing, but there is some. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think notability was just temporary based on reading few sources from google search. WP:NTEMP Asteramellus (talk) 21:45, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Limited amount of coverage [58] and [59]. First is about her parent passing away, second one is by her employer. We don't have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radhikaraje Gaekwad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.

None of the reliable sources provide significant coverage to the subject separate from their family. Koshuri ^(グ) 09:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 09:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rizvi

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

Draft on this subject was declined multiple times due to lack of notability. Since it was still under process of improvisation, editor has blanked the draft and moved the article into main space. Article doesn't meet BLP criteria. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Spirituality. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Bihar, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried to find some sources, but failed to do so. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NBIO as of now. Taabii (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I implore all of you to look at the sources provided already. Multiple established Canadian news articles (National Post, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star), JSTOR, and published books. BurimKazimi (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An editor on a similar forum says about a separate article, "My search through Google resources (e.g. Google Books, Google Scholar) and provincial archives (accessed through Vancouver City archives and UBC archives) yielded no in-depth coverage by reliable sources." This editor, regarding that article, is correct. See for yourself. Please note that this subject, however, must be far from such criteria, as subject is established clearly in Google Books, provincial news (National Post, Toronto Sun, Toronto Star,) Toronto city archives (multiple examples, some front-page,) JSTOR, and MEMRI. BurimKazimi (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify this sourcing not just vague waves
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're all in the article. BurimKazimi (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna do a source assessment: Refs 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 17 have short quotes from Rizvi on other topics and do not count towards the GNG. Ref 3 quotes Rizvi extensively – not sigcov about him, but this indicates to me that he is a subject-matter expert. Ref 4 mentions that Muhammad Rizvi's father was a "well-known Shia imam and writer" but doesn't have sigcov of the son. Ref 5 is an obituary for the father which briefly mention's the son's job, not sigcov. Ref 6 has long quotes from him and mentions that a school he was affiliated with was suspended, not quite sigcov but closer. Ref 7 is a short biography, definitely sigcov, but it is not really independent, given it seems to be hosted by an online school he works for. I don't have access to the book cited in ref 8, so I cannot judge it. Ref 9 doesn't have the title of the article, so I can't find it on ProQuest. Ref 10 quotes Rizvi extensively but from the part I can see doesn't give much information about him beyond his job. Ref 11 is a passing mention. Ref 14 has longer quotes from Rizvi. Ref 16 is just a photo. Refs 18, 19, and 20 are about a document he signed along with a large number of other people; they do not contain sigcov, simply listing his name once or not mentioning him at all. Ref 21 is a long quote from him, from a source of dubious reliability (WP:MEMRI). Ref 22 is a scholarly source that extensively references Rizvi's writing and at one point criticizes it – if we had more sources like this, we might meet WP:NAUTHOR, but one alone is not enough, and this is not sigcov about him. Ref 23 is a biography (sigcov), but it is not clear to me if it is independent. Ref 24 is the only source that definitely counts toward the GNG.
Based on the sourcing in the article alone I lean towards !voting weak delete, but he does seem to be an influential and oft-cited expert on religious matters. Toadspike [Talk] 09:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a few spot checks, starting with the JSTOR source, and came to much the same conclusions. The sourcing to a photograph of 3 blokes standing around is one of the particularly poor pieces of sourcing. Surely there was a piece that had words in it, to accompany the photograph! Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonestar Shootout 2022

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

No notable pro wrestling event. Most sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage, no coverage after the show to prove notability. Searching for sources, it doesn't look like the event had coverage after [60] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This recurrent event is the first of a continuous series of pay-per-views. Coverage from recently implemented reliable sources such as Pro Wrestling Dot Net, POSTWrestling, Fightful and Wrestling Observer Newsletter are enough to support WP:NOTABILITY. JeyReydar97 (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article has coverage, there is no in-deep coverage of the event AFTER it happened. Wikipedia:Notability (events) talks about it. While the event was covered at the time, there is no much sources years after. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated above, NJPW pay-per-views (as topics) are always subjects of WP:SIGCOV. However, they don't always need to have ongoing coverage since generally demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP (no need for extra future articles to provide more coverage as established by NTEMP). The Duration of coverage subsection of the inclusion criteria also talks about it. Narrowing down to the hereby case, the article meets at least two main criterias of WP:DEPTH through it's references. Sources such as [61] which are not featured in the article but can be googled check the WP:FUTUREEVENT criteria. All of the reliable sources already featured in the article check the criteria of WP:DIVERSE. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:05, 19 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durusau

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

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Law. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, United States of America, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 07:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to High places in cyberspace. I have found three reviews of his book High places in cyberspace: in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies [62], in Semeia : an Experimental Journal for Biblical Studies [63] (p 166), and in the Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion [64]. So it looks as though the book is notable, per WP:NBOOK. We could either write an article about the book, or keep the article about him, adding references including the book reviews. There are certainly newspaper articles which verify that he worked as a defence lawyer, which don't contribute to notability but would probably be better sources than a law report. I haven't yet found secondary sources about his work with OASIS or ISO standards. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We could move the current article to the book title, to maintain history, and make the article about the book, which per your sourcing looks notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aranmula Palace

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

The article has been subject to several AfDs under multiple titles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula Kottaram and the much older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula palace). The article has weak sourcing and search results turn almost none that can demonstrate wp:notability. Recommend redirection to Aranmula as with the most recent AfD (that was closed three months ago!). Please note that the author's edits mostly revolve around promoting the palace as a standalone article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Royalty and nobility, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What with Aranmula palace (AfD discussion), Aranmula Kottaram (AfD discussion), Aranmula Mangattu Palace, Aranmula Vadake Kottaram (Northern Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Kottaram), Aranmula Pala (Aranmula Kotta), Draft:Aranmula Kottaram, Draft:Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram, and Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram it is becoming hard to keep track. It doesn't help that the articles don't clarify which of these is the real Kottaram. Uncle G (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, The malayalam word 'kottaram' means Palace in english language. vadake kottaram is the name of palace. There was another big palace in aranmula known as 'Valiya kottaram'(Meaning-big palace). when valiya kottaram demolished on 1985, last king moved to Vadakke kottaram and continued to live there until 2008.then he left aranmula and died last year. The malayalam word 'vadakke' means northen in english language. After 5 yeas research,in the book 'Aranmula Ithihyavum Charithra Sathyangalum' Written By K P Sreeranganadhan, he mentioned in page 418 that he have proofs that showing vadakke kottaram renovated in 1910 and got approval from kerala ruled king. Since aranmula dynasty don't had any ruling privilege's, and it is a small village, it is not mentioned much in history. However, in the book Kerala A Journey in Time Part II: Kingdom Of Cochin & Thekamkoor Rajyam; People Places and Potpourr, written by George Abraham, also describes Aranmula palace belongs to Thekumkoor dynasy. Article's about aranmula kottaram is there in news channel is also added in references. I don't know how to vote for 'keep' this article. i couldn't find any 'keep' button. yes to protect this page, I have done some small mistakes. I have created a page on 2009 in wikipedia and from 2018-2021 onwards, this page is targeted and attacked. it is mentioned that the article has been subject to several AfDs. it was for the first page and it is deleted by some one without even informing me. Sorry to say You people didnot take any action against user who do vandalism. I have recreated this page and Now again.. Please keep in mind that there are lot of treasures in world like this which are not recorded properly in history. I have spend a lot of time and effort. I had enough mental stress due to this page and not anymore. If you think this is fake, you may delete this. You can delete only Wikipedia page but not the real palace which will remain in Aranmula for ever.
Thanks Ajithchandra (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. If this is a duplicate of another article, then it could be redirected there, but in the absence of a better redirect target, the town article is the most appropriate. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not duplicate. This is recreated page when someone targeted and deleted first page after continuous vandalism. You may ask why i didnt reported. First of all, i am not a wikpedia expert. I have reported it in edit history and to some people who tagged for deletion. After reading my reply, they all just left instead of providing support. I tried to go through the help but to be honest, it was very confusing and there is no simple steps to follow. So i did what i can do. What else i am suppose to do when there is no support from wiki experts? Ajithchandra (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both this article and the equally poorly sourced page Aranmula Mangattu Palace to Aranmula. I agree with the user above that it's becoming hard to keep track of the drafts and all the similar pages. Keivan.f^Talk 19:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is genuine article and the authenticity is proved in the books mentioned in reference. This article is also useful for people who are searching about Aranmula. The malayalam word 'kottaram' means Palace in English language. vadake kottaram is the name of palace.. After 5 yeas research, in the book 'Aranmula Ithihyavum Charithra Sathyangalum' Written By K P Sreeranganadhan, he mentioned in page 418 that he have proofs that showing vadakke kottaram renovated in 1910 and got approval from Kerala ruled king. Since Aranmula dynasty don't had any ruling privilege's, and it is a small village, it is not mentioned much in history. However, in the book Kerala A Journey in Time Part II: Kingdom Of Cochin & Thekamkoor Rajyam; People Places and Potpourr, written by George Abraham, also describes Aranmula palace belongs to Thekumkoor dynasty. Article's about aranmula kottaram is there in the news is also added in references.Ajithchandra (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware of what was happening, but now I have a clear picture. The original page was created in 2009. The issues with this page began when a user, Arjunvishnu2000, along with another user, repeatedly attempted to change its content to "Mangattu Palace" (a different building near this palace) from 2018 to 2024. Every time I reverted their edits, they change it again after 2–3 months. I was so frustrated that I even tried creating a separate page for Mangattu Palace, hoping they would stop the vandalism and work on that page instead. However, when their repeated edit attempts failed, they then tried multiple times to have this page deleted. I did not receive any notifications about these actions until December 2024. I was also unaware that the original page had been redirected. One day, when I searched for it, I couldn't find it. As a result, I recreated the page, thinking the original content was lost.
  If you check the edit histories, you can clearly understand this. Unfortunately, it now seems that admins are protecting the page of user responsible for the vandalism while attempting to remove the real page. Ajithchandra (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This palace still exists in Aranmula and serves as a valuable reference for those interested in building a Nalukettu-style house. I believe this page should remain to inform those who are not familiar with Aranmula. vasu44 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Which Kottaram is the real Kottaram? Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book mentioned says, in toto, 10 words on this subject: "The Thkkumku royal family had several palaces, including Aranmula Palace". Clearly, even the article creator cannot give a simple verifiable statement of which Kottaram is the real Kottaram, given that there are 2 different buildings across a host of articles, and no decent sourcing. One has to appreciate, also, the new anonymous web-log purported source dated the very day that Ajithchandra weighed into this discussion, tagged with "wikipedia" at the bottom. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmula. This article fails WP:GNG. A standalone article about the palace cannot be justified with the sources presented.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh

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

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [65] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The only type of sources I can find was this one here ^[1] and it is a book that he wrote. It seems like it's sort of notable for someone to write a book and have other sourcing. But, thoroughly scanning Google I could not find any other sort of citations besides that one. I would just draftify this until better sourcing is needed. Editz2341231 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Royce Cronin

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

Completely unreferenced article about an actor. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them and their performances -- but this cites no references at all, and is written in a semi-advertorialized tone that's not complying with WP:NPOV.
As he's a British actor whose strongest claims to potentially passing NACTOR are television roles from 20 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with better access to archived UK media coverage from the noughts can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any referencing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, England, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG, NACTOR and SIGCOV. Also contains WP:SELFPROMO, as at least one, probably both, of the IP edits is/are by the subject himself. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 07:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in my search that'd contribute towards GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have yet to find independent RS referencing the subject in detail asides from brief mentions of his roles from what I have found so far.Villkomoses (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in 24Seven, Family Affairs and more recently on stage in The Band Back Together, a stage play by Barney Norris which does not yet have a WP article, but has reviews from The Guardian, The Times and The Spectator, which I have added to this article, and is thus clearly notable. He has also had other stage roles, including in a well-reviewed production of Bouncers by John Godber (which also should have a WP article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NACTOR - Had two regular roles on main channels in the UK. I have expanded the article slightly. Thank you for explaining RebeccaGreen - I was able to find sources for the works you talked about using the newspaper archive. Perhaps this just needs extra research, a lot of his career was in the 1990s and early 2000s and the link rot obviously means we lost sources for his early roles. I have sourced some early role info using archives.Rain the 1 21:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would request that this stays open longer since the original rationale and subsequent support for deletion is based on an unsourced version of this article [66] - I have sourced more of the actor's early life and career beginnings since my previous comment. Also pinging @Alexeyevitch:@DerbyCountyinNZ:@Villkomoses:@Traumnovelle:@Bearcat: - should I continue trying to expand it?Rain the 1 22:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by RebeccaGreen and the improvement (WP:HEY) done by RainTheOne. The subject is clearly notable and meets NACTOR. There are also multiple newspaper sources discussing the actor that I can email. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand National Unity Party

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

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Violates Wikipedia’s sourcing policies**: This article fails to provide reliable sources and lacks independent sources, violating Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article. --Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdu Golden Apple Child Education

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

I can't find any information about this company. The only company with a similar name I found was not founded in 1985. I'm not sure if it exists, and there are no references to this entry. Babaibiaobin (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The company exists (website, Baidu Baike), but doesn't seem notable enough to have any in-depth news coverage – I only found a brief mention in this Fortune article. --Iiii I I I (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hyung-jae

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

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Does not meet all three criteria for Wikipedia notability**: The subject is not listed in a biographical dictionary, has not received a significant award, and has not demonstrated consistent contributions that establish enduring notability.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article.--Jo HyeonSeong (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WAMPOC/WAMPEX

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

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish the conference as a prominent part within the energy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Africa, and Ghana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lhoist group

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

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content is too short to provide notability Mapsama (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised a company this large and old (established 1889) has so little coverage other than routine listings. I would change my opinion if more coverage could be found. Maybe someone with better access to offline print media archives could find something? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andres David Drobny

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

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just about meets WP:NAUTHOR, with two reviews of the subject's book in academic journals, which I have added to the article. I agree the tone is rather promotional. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s two reviews about the author’s book without any awards, I believe the entry should be about the book and not the author. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has at least two other books, Inside the house of money: top hedge fund traders on profiting in the global markets and The Invisible Hands: Top Hedge Fund Traders on Bubbles, Crashes, and Real Money, but my searches could not find any reliably published reviews. Two reviews of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR for me, we don't have the citation record needed for WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see the significant coverage in independent sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Pharma

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

I recommend the deletion of the MIdas Pharma page due to a lack of notability, as it does not have sufficient independent coverage in reputable sources to demonstrate its significance in the pharmacy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mapsama (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CTGP-R

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

Non-notable stub about an unofficial game mod that lacks sufficient coverage or depth. Contested WP:PROD. Current secondary sourcing is one reasonably in-depth TheGamer article about the subject, and a trivial mention in a WaPo article. A quick search yields little other than a brief mention in a Cracked article here: [67] All in all, this isn't exactly the pedigree or depth of coverage for a video game article. (Note: I'm not sure who decided to NPP tag what feels like every single possible tag on the page, but that wasn't me. The 'sources exist' tag is not accompanied by any suggested sources in-article or on the talk page.) ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether it's unofficial has no bearing in notability since we are not Nintendo, but it doesn't seem to have reached a decent threshold of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out - I agree I should probably go for concision and avoid coloring the rationale with a description of the title as it emphasises things that aren't relevant to notability, like that it's an unofficial game mod. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Washington Post and Cracked articles used for sourcing, WP isn't entirely about this mod, Cracked doesn't seem to be a RS/unclear reliability. I don't find anything else for sourcing, so it's a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of straight up deleting it, we should just Draftify it instead. TzarN64 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: If this content can't have it's own article, it should at the very least be put back into the article for Mario Kart Wii, with this article becoming a redirect to that section. TotallynotWario (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not have enough sources to be a stand-alone page. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Dost

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

This article documents a routine humanitarian mission that received only brief, routine news coverage and does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for events (WP:EVENT). It clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS, lacking the enduring coverage or in-depth secondary sources required by WP:GNG. There is no indication of lasting encyclopedic significance.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Syria, India, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Brahma

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

The article fails Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events (WP:EVENT) and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. It documents a routine news event without lasting encyclopedic significance. There is little to no in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that demonstrate enduring notability. As such, it does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chegouahora (talk • contribs) 06:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the page on the quake. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The details that exist in this article are too long and would be WP:UNDUE coverage if fully merged into the main article. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - theres literally a lot of pages like this Category:Humanitarian military operations involving India. India everytime launches a significant humanitarian aid with special names as an operation which is notable. I'm not only referring to india, there are loads of rescue operation like this by the US too Category:Non-combat military operations involving the United States. Imwin567 (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that there are similar articles about other operations, but just because those exist doesn’t automatically mean this one should stay too. Every article still has to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards on its own.

Imo though, the coverage for Operation Brahma seems pretty limited, it's mostly short-term news without any real in-depth analysis or long-term significance. That’s why I think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and probably doesn’t meet WP:GNG either. It's best that this article be merged to the page on the quake and this deleted. Chegouahora (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is yet to be updated. The operation is not even finished yet, you are rushing. Theres a lot more. Check the timeline section of the article. Later there will be numbers of how many being rescued and the role of operation brahma of the earthquake. Imwin567 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes this in particular so special from other rescue missions other countries are doing to where it warrants its own wikipedia page? The material, resources, manpower in this rescue mission done by India are all at similar levels to other countries. It does not warrant its own wikipedia article. Chegouahora (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what beef do you have with this article? The article is particularly special for Indian topic.. Similarly 2025 Bangkok skyscraper collapse article is a stub and one time article which is just a wp:event , but the event is notable for Thailand. So it exists. Similarly this operation is special for India + it was the first country to send aid to Myanmar. I already mentioned again similar article like this exists and this can exist too. You are just using the term WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. This article is not even controversial or harming any individual. Imwin567 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Myanmar, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough Notable to be included in wikipedia and the article is well sourced, does not fail NOTNEWS. Giving a list of sites where multiple detailed reports were published: NDTV, TOI, SBS Australia, The Sunday Gaurdian, NewsX, The Telegraph, Indian Express, Business Standard, The Hindu, Economic Times, FirstPost, Deccan Hearald, Business Standad, ABP, The Week, India Today, Mint With that, it's too early to nominate a well sourced(RS) article to be nominated for deletion, an ongoing event, in coming few days a lot will be developed and published. Drat8sub (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Negative checking

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

After a cursory search through the sources listed in part D of WP:BEFORE, I failed to find any other notable sources (much less three) that specifically speaks of negative checking as opposed to someone's checking account having a negative balance. A search for neg check is admittedly a bit more promising, but it mainly turns out online services as opposed to notable sources.

Given that we can't really merge this article into our article on the fictitious persons disclaimer (which itself doesn't really discuss negative checking), I propose deleting this article. Silcox (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no opinion on how notable, but I looked for the Lunney and Oliphant book mentioned on the page, and it indeed has a para on negative checking just as described, on page 728. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit that I'm unable to read the book due to technical reasons, although I was already aware that the book was mentioned in the article even while writing this AfD. I cannot find any other sources on negative checking, so I think we're stuck in 1R territory even if the book proved to be a non-passing reference for the subject. Silcox (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a shame, because if you had, you would have seen that the source cites a second source itself: Barendt et al. 1997a, pp. 114–115 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarendtLustgartenNorrieStephenson1997a (help) and Barendt et al. 1997b, pp. 195 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarendtLustgartenNorrieStephenson1997b (help). That said, I think that this is the BBC's idiosyncratic name for this. I found exactly one other mention, and it was in a directory of BBC departments in a 1993 handbook on television production (ISBN 9780240513447). (Yes, BBC. The original source talks about the BBC. See page 132.) Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997a). "Broadcasting". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 100–125. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0005. ISBN 9780198262275.
    - Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997b). "Conclusions". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 182–198. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0009. ISBN 9780198262275.

The section heading used on Barendt et al. 1997a, p. 114 is "The Problem of Unintentional Defamation", by the way. You will get a lot further with unintentional defamation as the subject name. Of course we've had a missing subject titled by one particular nonce noun phrase instead of the actual name since 2008. This is Wikipedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Radio, Television, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a UK term, not specifically a BBC one - and indeed the example given in the article is an ITV programme, although it is used at the BBC. Smethurst's How to Write for Television (both 2000 and 2016 editions) has half a page of discussion of neg checking under Libel. Gallagher's Breaking into UK Film and TV Drama (2016) mentions it under Clearances. Orlebar's The Practical Media Dictionary (2003) has an entry for Negative Checks. Note that all of these have a slightly different definition from the current article - it's not just about individuals' names, but also about products and companies. I didn't find any examples of it being used outside the UK; from the US, Patz's Production Management 101 (2002) uses it to mean checking film negatives. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- With 3 slangy sources where "neg check" is string matched to something partway down and buried in the middle of what is actually a discussion of defamation (the "libel" sources saying "defamatory matter" outright), specifically unintentional defamation, how one risks it and how one can attempt to avoid it, you make my case for me.
  If you go instead to the higher quality law sources like Douglas Maule's Media Law Essentials (EUP, 2017) or Robertson and Lane's Media Law: The Rights of Journalists and Broadcasters (Longman, 1984) you'll find this and more under unintentional defamation. There's tonnes of this if one actually gets the subject name right and stops following the Wikipedia practice of using slang titles and string matching.
  I'll mention at this point that the Lunney and Oliphant book is on the law of tort and page 728 is part of chapter 12, on defamation, pages 727 to 729 dealing with intent and with E. Hulton & Co. v Jones, 20 (AC 1910). as the aforementioned do as well (and which has had impact in Indian and Australian jurispridence). Even the 1 original source cited is telling us all what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to unintentional defamation and refactor this content into a section on means of preventing this, basically per Uncle G. BD2412 T 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Pinay

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

Does not pass GNG. Only piece of independent, in-depth coverage is an interview in "Hotspots Magazine" from 2013. The other source with subject's name in headline is just a recap of a reality TV episode on which the subject was eliminated; it is not in-depth coverage of Vivienne Pinay. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Philippines, and Georgia (U.S. state). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lineysha Sparx

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

Does not pass GNG. The only piece of in-depth, independent coverage of this person is an interview from 2013 in Hotspots Magazine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, Sexuality and gender, Puerto Rico, and New York. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Topličević

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

I could find nothing meaningful on this young player. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but as it stands right now, there doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV here. Anwegmann (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Contested draftification. The creator did not respect or understand draftification, and has messed up the edit history somewhat. Only 1 senior football game means a huge failure of WP:SPORTCRIT. I did find this. Geschichte (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: Yeah, I saw that after I nominated it. Sorry about that Talk page message. It obviously wasn't intended for you. Anwegmann (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For countries that do not use Latin Alphabet, searching in their original script is where the coverage would be; a plain English search is generally not sufficient. In this case, has anyone tried searching under "Вук Топличевић" on Google? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, which is why I searched in both. Anwegmann (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals

AfDs for this article:

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

While reviewing my past AfD nominations, I came across this page and noticed that it has been further improved. Upon closer examination, I discovered that the book in question was published under the Penguin Enterprise imprint, which is essentially a vanity publishing division of Penguin Random House India. As per WP:NBOOKS, "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not establish notability." So, I am nominating the page again. This book is simply a strategic attempt to improve someone's public image. Charlie (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That it was self-published doesn't make it not notable if there are reviews. It just tends to correlate with a lack of reviews. Reviews were brought up in the last AfD. Do you have new reason to believe those are unreliable (not out of the question since NEWSORGINDIA) PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion, I feel that a book published through a vanity press and written by a rocket scientist rather than a business expert may not have the same credibility as works from any other established author. Also, a glance at the author's Wikipedia page shows that they have written on almost every topic imaginable, which is quite something. Interestingly, the book is mostly reviewed in Indian news portals (which, as everyone knows, lacks integrity WP:NEWSORGINDIA) instead of respected academic journals, which makes one wonder about the recognition it’s getting. Overall, things don’t quite seem to add up. Now, if I let my imagination run a little further, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to think that Govind Dholakia, the subject of this autobiography, might have funded this autobiography to bolster his bid for a Rajya Sabha seat. While it is being claimed that he has been 'elected,' a closer look at the process tells a different story. In India, Rajya Sabha members from each state are chosen by the state's MLAs through an indirect election using proportional representation with a single transferable vote (STV). Given that Gujarat's legislature is dominated by BJP MLAs and that Dholakia was fielded as a BJP candidate, it’s hardly surprising that he secured the seat. It does raise the question, though was this a genuine election or just a well-orchestrated move to further his legacy? Charlie (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points, however the issue is that an author or publisher's credibility isn't necessarily the deciding factor in whether or not a book passes notability guidelines or is independently notable of its author or subject. What is the deciding factor would be coverage in independent and reliable sources.

Now as far as sourcing goes, you're correct in that there is an issue with churnalism in Indian news sources. However that doesn't mean that all Indian news sources are unusable. Some are, but others can still be usable - and with others it might be a case of where in the paper the article was published rather than the outlet as a whole. WP:ICTFSOURCES has a pretty good list of what's usable and what isn't. The list is geared towards film, however it should suffice in this situation as well. Offhand with the article, most of the sources are from usable outlets like Deccan Chronicle, The Asian Age, and Outlook India. The Indian Express is usable as long as it's not from their Brand section. DeshGujarat and The Hindu Businessline are kind of questionable. Both would need to go through WP:RS/N to determine its usability even for minor details. What doesn't help with THB is that the film sourcing list mentions them as an example of incorrect reporting. All of that means that even if we remove the questionable sources, that still leaves us with three definitely usable sources, all of which are reviews - so notability is established.

Now instead of arguing notability or bringing up the article's creation history, a better argument to make would be whether or not there's enough information about the book to make an individual article worthwhile or if it's largely redundant to the main article on Dholakia. One common issue with biographies is that sometimes the book fails to get any coverage other than reviews of the work. This means that there's no coverage on the writing process or any other information that would be unique to the book - note that this coverage would include primary sources like the author's website or interviews about the book's development. In cases like this the book may pass notability guidelines, but still not have enough overall information to really be all that useful - so in some cases it ends up that the book can be more or less summarized in a paragraph on the subject's Wikipedia page. Now, I haven't looked at any of the sources so it's entirely possible that this coverage does exist and can be used to flesh out the book article and make it worthwhile. I think that should absolutely be explored. Otherwise it's a case of merge and redirect rather than delete because the book is notable - it's just a question of where it should be covered. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack your words leave no room for debate. If this AfD discussion requires a proper and conclusive closure, it must be grounded in the reasoning put forth by you. Thank you for not only guiding this discussion but also helping me understand better. Charlie (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Biographies are kind of a weird area, honestly. Whenever they come up part of me wants to keep them for completionism, but in many cases there's just not a lot of non-review information. If the parent page is particularly large I'll often argue for inclusion because it would be difficult to really include content about the book adequately, but in this case the subject's article is kind of lean and a small section about that would help flesh it out more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found three book reviews last time, that's more than we have for most book articles that come to AfD. This isn't War and Peace, but a biography about a businessman. I'm satisfied with the sourcing given. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date My Family Nigeria

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

This article's subject does not meet notability requirements. I could not find many reliable sources mentioning it. Most of the references in the article do not seem to be reliable and independent of the subject. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is poorly written, has many errors, and does not meet notability requirements. All news I could find are promotional content for the subject. ^Wiinter_U 02:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC

Delete: Also did not find any meaningful sources on the topic. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 31 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 orMerge with Draft:Gay Valimont as per above. Flat Out (talk) 05:24, 27 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]
Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election, with a selective merge to Draft:Gay Valimont if needed. There is just not enough non-special election coverage to warrant an article. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, the Florida special elections in less than a week are being covered by NBC News and so on, in part, because so much funding is flowing in for these congressional elections. Starlighsky (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election, there is just not enough notability beyond Valimont being a congressional candidate to warrant a stand-alone article.

Stanloona2020 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or in the alternate, merge. She has raised an extraordinary amount of money, which sadly is what counts today. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, to clarify, are you voting keep or merge? Because those are two different things. And raising a lot of money doesn't automatically entitle someone to a Wikipedia page. Marcus Flowers raised $17 million in his campaign against Marjorie Taylor Greene and has no page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I voted keep, but don't oppose a merger. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with some overhauls. I think it could be notable considering it's a mainly republican area that she's running in. Especially notable if she wins. However, I do think the page needs to be edited quite a bit. Camillz (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Camillz, could you clarify what you mean here? The fact that she's running in "a mainly republican area" doesn't qualify her for a Wikipedia page. There are dozens of Democrats who run in heavily GOP areas (and vice versa) every election cycle. Remember that WP:NPOL says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Florida's 1st congressional district is incredibly Republican. Witch Donald Trump winning 68% of the vote last American election. Source. And Matt Gaetz winning 66.0% of the vote during the last election I that particular district. Source. I think it's noteworthy that she's going up in this district, and seeking election. She's also raised 6.5 million dollars, more than her opponent.Source. this to me anyways, shows that her campaign has good momentum, and I think that's noteworthy for such a reason. Again I do think the page should be edited a bit more, but honestly, I don't think it should be deleted. Especially if she wins. Camillz (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 100 safe House districts in America and most are contested every election cycle. Running in a red district doesn't make her especially noteworthy. And raising a lot of money doesn't automatically entitle someone to a Wikipedia page. Marcus Flowers raised $17 million in his campaign against Marjorie Taylor Greene and has no page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This fails WP:NPOL badly and is otherwise non-notable. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. There's an abundance of national reliable sources (with more to come in the next few days for sure). Nemo 19:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Plenty of far more prominent congressional candidates don't have pages. I don't see any reason why this individual should be considered notable enough. brg37133 19:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This candidate is very notable, the April 1st elections are being covered a lot right now by news. I don't see how she is not notable enough. The fact she is even making this race close says enough about her. She deserves it, and she also deserves a photo for her page aswell! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.68.231 (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one deserves an article, we need to show notability with coverage in reliable sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to election page. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 01:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now If she loses next week we can always delete at that time, if she wins the effort put into the current page needs to be repeated to some extent. Therefore I do see no reason to delete right now. Arnoutf (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election; the usual outcome for these type of political candidates. If she were to win, can be restored from history and if not doesn't sit around becoming out of date. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and I'm also reluctant to close a discussion on a political candidate two days before an election when, depending on the results, sentiment could change. I'd also like to discourage editors from bringing strong candidates to AFD on the cusp of an election which could change their eligibility for NPOL. Either nominate them weeks before the election or after the election but not the week before the election is scheduled to happen. Of course, now that this discussion has been relisted, it can be closed at any time a closer can discern a consensus among participants. And if the election results change your opinion, please strike out your earlier "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The election is literally tomorrow. If she wins, the article is ready for a new congressional representative. There is a lot of notability across the country because the 2025 Florida Special Elections are presenting surprising polling data for congressional districts that traditionally voted Republican. To delete now is bordering to taking a political position in tomorrow's election. Starlighsky (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user tried to vote twice. Note that the first vote in this discussion was also from them. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep for now, I agree with what @Arnoutf says. If she wins, keep the article. If she loses, redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election.RedactedHumanoid (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Right now is notable only for losing to Matt Gaetz and running in this election. If they win, keep, if they lose, merge with 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election or delete (and either way redirect to 2025 Florida's 1st congressional district special election#Nominee_2. 2603:6011:9440:D700:583E:ACE5:ED99:217 (talk) 20:33, 31 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]
@Trainsandotherthings: - Given the detail of entries consistently across the site, I'd say yes. However, I'm not a MILHIST expert, it just happens that some ships have MILHIST connections. I'll ask over there, see what the experts say. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Having had a look around the usual sources I agree that it is going to be difficult to prove notability for Mollusc. The Historical RFA page is more a list of seaman deaths plus two lines on the salvaging of some items from Falmouth than in depth coverage. Clydeships prove the ship existed but is not much more than a database entry. I think any evidence of notability will come from her later service as Yantlet, especially with mention of this 1667 Dutch warship and the possibility of work during the Second World War. I'm no expert on civil ship service so with have to leave it to others to prove or disprove. Looking at some definitely not reliable sources, it appears Mollusc may have originally been the name ship of the Trinculo-class mooring vessels. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one but the nominator has actually cast a "vote" here yet. I'd also like to get this discussion a bit more time in case an editor knowledgeable about ships and shipping can propose an ATD. Too bad there isn't a deletion sort for "ships".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 31 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]
Merge to Indian Powerplus#Promotion and development. I can't find much more about Walter Steinhart - digitised newspapers provide information that he was the manager of the Cycle Supply company in Spokane, and rode from Spokane to Seattle on an Indian motorbike in just over 10 hours in 1921. Neither adds to notability, and there's not really SIGCOV, either. I think the info that, in 1917, Steinhart, on an Indian motorcycle, was the first motorcyclist to reach the summit of Snoqualmie Pass and won a race twice around Lake Washington, could be added to the Indian Powerplus article, with sources - the brand he rode is named in contemporary reports of the events. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Indian Powerplus#Promotion and development. There is still some salvageable content from the article. If not, Redirect to said article. ^Wiinter_U 02:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho, Tipton County, Indiana

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

There is no significant coverage of this because it never existed. The single source I could find that mentions it with more than a phrase says its location is conjecture because no one ever bought land in the village and the plat was abandoned. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jefferson Township, Tipton County, Indiana. I think there could be some useful information that could be salvaged in a merge. If not, Redirect to Jefferson Township. ^Wiinter_U 02:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Goodspeed, Cline, and Pershing county histories all have this; they all say the same thing; and it isn't any more than this article already says except that they give an approximate location of (per Cline) south-west of the intersection of SR28 and SR31. And they all have it as a sub-head under Jefferson Township. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sopher

AfDs for this article:

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

I responded to a speedy tag this morning as G4, recreation of an article previously deleted at XfD. In the moment, I believed the sourcing similar to that when it was first deleted. After another admin disagreed I was happy to undo the G4. Now I'm asking for re-assessment of this version, since I wasn't given the opportunity to question the SIGCOV in my purely administrative tasks. I assert these sources are marginal at best, and the page creator was blocked for promotional ediitng several years ago. I have no presented reason to believe this wealthy businessman is any more notable than any other wealthy businessman. BusterD (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United Kingdom. BusterD (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles are either about being one of the to hedge fund managers, where he's mentioned in a list with about 19 others, or this [68] about planting a tree in Saudi Arabia as a sign of interfaith "togetherness" for lack of a better word. I don't see sources 1 and 4 in the article as being only about this person. Rest aren't RS per Cite HIghlighter. Being one in a list of 20 and planting trees aren't quite enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has been covered by Maneet Ahuja in her books and numerous reliable sources, including Reuters, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal. As the Chairman of LCH Investments, the world’s oldest fund of hedge funds, he is also responsible for compiling the annual list of top hedge funds. in addition, he holds distinguished positions at notable organizations like the Woolf Institute, Alliance Israélite Universelle, and the Center for Jewish History. If these credentials are not sufficient to establish notability for a hedge fund manager, then what would be? In fact, many existing Wikipedia pages on cite fewer sources than his.Jiuantaui (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are not particularly strong arguments. Both Oaktree b and I have read the applied sources already, and neither of us are impressed. Remember, we are discussing this pagespace, not any of that other category pagespace. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need sourcing about the person. You can be whatever and get an article here if you have enough sourcing. Being notable but having poor sourcing is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh Chanda Kanoon Hai

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

This Indian comedy series fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. GTrang (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_SAB#Comedy_series: or Shashank Bali. Mentioned there. Not opposed to keep; notable cast, 108 episodes. Premise and cast should appear in the target page. -Mushy Yank. 18:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I would recommend the first one mentioned by Mushy Yank as Shashank Bali could use some cleanup. Better to preserve in the program lineup at least for now. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 31 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]
Merge to List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have two separate Merge target articles proposed so we have to settle on one for the purposed of our closing technology, XFDcloser.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of DC Comics characters: L: Not independently notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 07:14, 31 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested Merge/Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 31 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]
Keep - this nomination does not show signs of WP:BEFORE. PULSA as a government body, working across the state. " In Punjab such kinds of lok adalats are conducted under the Punjab Legal Services Authority. It takes up the various kinds of cases and is settled under this lok adalat." ([69]) See for example [70], [71], [72]. --Soman (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

^ "was this". July 2023.

[1] Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.

[2] ttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.270.5233.68

[3] Cloud, Abigail; Faulkner, Sandra L. (2 December 2019). Poetic Inquiry as Social Justice and Political Response. Vernon Press. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-1-62273-752-9.

[4] Kraehe, Amelia M. (4 July 2018). "Outside In and Inside Out: Space, Place, and the Where of Art Education". Art Education. 71 (4): 4–7. doi:10.1080/00043125.2018.1467709.

[5] Dowling, Jennifer (12 June 2022). "'March for Our Lives' protest led by students in Everett". FOX 13 Seattle.

[6] "Flashback: Students lead fight for gun control". Reuters. 19 February 2019.

[7] Andone, Dakin (11 February 2019). "Parkland students turned from victims to activists and inspired a wave of new gun safety laws". CNN. Kramer believes many voters were weary of gun violence, and the shooting in Parkland and the subsequent calls for change left an impression on them. He recalled how local teenagers in his hometown of Mukilteo followed the footsteps of Marjory Stoneman Douglas students and put on their own student-led rally against gun violence last spring. "People were still very much aware of that and that informed their decision when casting their vote on the ballot in November," he said. "The March For Our Lives movement made an impact in Washington state."

[8] "was this". July 2023.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]