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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WVQR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Older discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KCKQ Chuterix (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Radio stations started in the 2010s tend not to get the significant coverage we now require under the best circumstances (and this being a nine-year station, we can only consider coverage that already exists—or doesn't—as there is highly unlikely to be any more); this is simply another remnant of the loose inclusion standards still present in this topic area in 2016. The list of radio stations in U.S. territories contains next-to-no listings of defunct stations, so there's nothing to redirect to either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Depends on a single reference likely a primary source, fails WP:GNG See this, No Coverage over ten years. Chippla360 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless somebody with better access to Spanish-language sourcing from Puerto Rico than I've got can find improved referencing. To be fair, the inclusion standard for radio stations formerly conferred an automatic notability freebie on any radio station as long as its FCC licensing was verified by the FCC database — but that's long since been tightened up to require some evidence of passong WP:GNG, while there's no GNG-building sourcing shown here at all.
  For the record, the page was prematurely deleted on March 16, using only this discussion itself as reasoning rather than any indication that the article met any of the special criteria that would allow early deletion of an AFD-listed article before the AFD process had run its course, and even this discussion itself was not closed at all — so I've restored the article due to the out of process deletion, but that's obviously not meant as an endorsement of keeping it. It's just that people with some expertise in the subject matter need sufficient time to determine if the issues are fixable or not, which is precisely why the AFD process is seven days. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This procedure was closed by an ip contributor, but I have reverted it, since the ip wasn't allowed to close a process above their permissions level. I have no particular interest in the outcome. BusterD (talk) 10:38, 21 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shooting at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre rifle prone. ✗plicit 23:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Salam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable sportsman. Participated in one Olympic event, and that is all that is mentioned. Per Olympic historian Paul Tchir, the fact that he participated is the only information we have on Salam, not even a birthdate. For that reason, this article should be deleted. Jordano⁵³ 23:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lebanon, Olympics, and Sportspeople. Jordano⁵³ 23:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shooting at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre rifle prone where his 70th place finish (out of 71 competitors) is recorded. A stand-alone article can't be supported here because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shooting at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre rifle prone: Like the nom, I was unable to find anything that suggests this subject meets the WP:SPORTSBASIC. Redirect as a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:38, 16 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Run of the mill programming tool, not to mention, its notability problems have not improved since receiving a notability tag in March 2014. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: [1] [2] and [3], along with the sources on the article talk page, should demonstrate notability, although narrowly. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per the sources above, along with [4]. The usage of the tool is explained quite well in the sources. Conyo14 (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 14 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.

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 delete‎. czar 02:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hitched (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is not a film, but a TV pilot (for Fox) that was filmed and not picked up - an extremely common occurrence in TV. It never aired and never will, despite this saying it aired in 2005. Coverage is routine for pilot production. DoubleCross (‡) 19:33, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Thomas_Carter_(director)#Filmography: with the sources and explain what it was (added a source) -Mushy Yank. 20:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. -Mushy Yank. 20:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there further support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not based on the Will Smith/Kevin James film without the -ed that was released in the same year in case there's confusion; just another WP:MILL failed pilot. Nathannah • 📮 00:18, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have no problem with there being a redirect of some sort to the director's page, but I do have to question the term 'film'. There isn't a lot of sourcing for this and what little there is specifically calls this a TV pilot, not a film. Now, sometimes TV pilots can be long enough to get repackaged as a film and released on its own, but not all TV pilots are film length or released as films. To be very honest, I don't see where Hitched was ever actually released to the general public. The only mention of it in the news are very brief mentions that a pilot was being made and then also brief mentions that the pilot was never brought to series. There are no listings of the pilot airing on TV on Newspapers.com. The only place that seems to mention it as a TV movie is IMDb, which isn't usable as a RS for this sort of thing. We can use it as a jumping off point, but I am not really comfortable calling this a TV film based solely on IMDb stating that it was.

As far as mentioning it in the article goes, I don't see why it should be. It barely got any notice and as far as I can tell, never released. It was barely a blip in the director's career. We could list it in the filmography section, sure, but I don't think it needs any in-depth mention. It could just be "Hitched - TV pilot" in the filmography section. For the redirect, I'd more suggest going with Hitched (2005 TV pilot). That's more accurate to the sourcing we have - although I suppose the question then becomes how viable of a search target it would really be, but I'm fine either way. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Not viable as a separate article and title is too inaccurate to be a useful redirect. But it is worth a mention at Thomas_Carter_(director)#Filmography. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Inside the Hollow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Temptation (Hollow) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find any significant coverage that discusses this single in detail. Plenty of database mentions, but nothing substantial. As far as I can tell, it is an uncharting single. -- Mike 🗩 20:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Inside the Hollow, per nom. I have done a check for sources in line with, and arguably beyond, WP:BEFORE (including a search on the Internet Archive for any coverage on MTV News, and for the Blender ranking mentioned in the article), and I can barely find information about the album the song is on, let alone info about this song specifically. Seems like a clear-cut case of failing WP:NSONG to me. Leafy46 (talk) 19:41, 19 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guilherme (footballer, born August 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After doing a WP:BEFORE I found nothing relevant about the player, just one spell for CD Santa Clara in the 2011-12 season and a few more performances for state level teams in Brazil ([5]) [6]. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sportspeople, Brazil, and Portugal. Svartner (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Svartner and GiantSnowman. What a popular name on Wikipedia and all with articles!. Many of these wanna-be biographies, of course, with exceptions, should be deleted or merged. When there is only one source such as Guilherme (footballer, born August 1990) (CBF Registry), or two sources, usually not reliable and independent, with no significant coverage, such as this article, it should be looked at. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for resumes nor dictionary entries like Guilherme (footballer, born 1983). When an article does not even contain the more basic biographical information such as date of birth, and a before search gets confusing, especially with the many like names such as Guilherme Finkler commonly known as Guilherme (in Brazil), or sources are lacking, notability is without a doubt questionable. When the basic source search criteria has been met, and it seems a subject can't even reach minimum notability requirements, it should not remain. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:18, 16 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chakma Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article was recently proposed for merging into Chakma Circle (see discussion); however, several editors in the discussion had concerns about verifiability/hoax material and recommended deletion instead, so I am taking to AfD for review. I note that the article creator has now been blocked for copyright infringement and that some of their other articles have been flagged as hoaxes – see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakma martial arts. Courtesy ping for everyone involved in the merge discussion: @Mehedi Abedin, EmeraldRange, Worldbruce, UwU.Raihanur, Imwin567, and Vinegarymass911. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TNT is the best option here. I have not had time to look up every footnote but of the sampling I selected, there are significant problems: Chakma, B. (2010). Buddhism and Ethnic Conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. New York: Routledge, pp. 32–34 and Uddin, S. (2019). The Chittagong Hill Tracts: Living with a Dilemma. Routledge. pp. 75–77 are completely fabricated; the ISBNs offered do not exist. Khan, A. (1998). The Chakmas: An Ethno-Historical Study. Dhaka: University Press Limited, p. 142 also appears to be completely fabricated. van Schendel, Willem (2000). The Chittagong Hill Tracts: Living in a Borderland. University of Washington Press. pp. 89–91 is real, but the publication date and publisher are wrong and the quote it purports to supply does not appear anywhere in the book, much less pages 89-91. Lewin, T.H. (1869). The Hill Tracts of Chittagong and the Dwellers Therein (PDF). Bengal Printing Company. pp. 18–20 is a frequently used source, but these citations fail verification. For example, footnote 5 offers up a quotation that does not appear on the purported page number or anywhere else. Bottom line this article fails WP:V and somewhere between a substantial portion or all of it may be a WP:HOAX. It needs to be removed from mainspace. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TNT applies. This is a AI-generated clusterfuck. My thoughts reflect that of @Dclemens1971 Sohom (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above discussion. And, Every info in the article is already pretty much written within the Chakma Circle and Chakma people#History. Imwin567 (talk) 05:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See User talk:Tsawzhak#Research conduct for my analysis of a third of the citations. "Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism" sums it up. A few editors made good faith efforts to improve this train wreck of an article. The pages cited for the start date of the "kingdom", for example, have been corrected, but the book is by a non-expert, Chitta Ranjan Chakma, and is self published, [7] so we shouldn't be using it. There is nothing worth salvaging. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:HOAX. Mehedi Abedin 08:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:HOAX, needs blowing up jolielover♥talk 18:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above discussion. RAIHAN ⚡ Got something to say? 20:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above discussion & WP:HOAX. Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 13:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is far more of an elaborate hoax than the Chakma martial arts article. Nearly all of the references don't seem to exist at all, besides a single self-published source written by a non expert. Absolutely none of the identifiers (ISBN, DOI, etc.) or links are valid, or link to the supposed source they claim to.

As I've said before, it seems like the article author is just including a crapton of made up, AI-generated offline citations in hopes that nobody will check to see if they exist. ApexParagon (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of this article also tried adding the supposed "ensign of Chakma Raj" to the Chakma Circle article. He had uploaded this file himself to Commons. I cannot find any proof that they ever used this as an ensign.

When I tried reverse searching the image, the only matches I found were from a WordPress article and a Facebook post. Not great sourcing wise.

This is the same image that is the supposed "coat of arms" in the Chakma Kingdom article, and that he included on the supposed flag of Chakma, which he also uploaded to Commons himself and added to the Chakma people article...

This is a VERY elaborate hoax. Christ. ApexParagon (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He added a different version of the flag to the "Chakma Sidebar" template... good grief ApexParagon (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(note: i have reverted all of these edits, you can see them in the edit history) ApexParagon (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, worth noting the article creator in question (User:Tsawzhak) has already been indefinitely blocked for repeatedly uploading copyrighted images. Though this is not relevant to the discussion at hand. ApexParagon (talk) 01:22, 20 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.

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 merge‎ to Postage stamps and postal history of Sudan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Sudan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails Wikipedia:NLIST. See similar discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Israel --Altenmann >talk 20:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Sudan. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Postage stamps and postal history of Sudan. This seems to be appropriate to include in the main article but not in a standalone list. Reywas92^Talk 19:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Postage stamps and postal history of Sudan: I was really excited by the article but most of the sources are not working or deadlinks, and most of the sources are for the facts about the person and not the stamp or a link to the stamp. Bit disappointed tbh. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:43, 15 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.

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn‎ Dajasj (talk) 07:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religious affiliations of prime ministers of the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the Netherlands by education, this list does not meet WP:NLIST Dajasj (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I do not think the comparison to education is very strong. In the Netherlands, much more has been written about whether a (potential) prime minister is Roman Catholic, Protestant, or agnostic/atheist. Even as recently as 2023.[8] This AfD should be examined on its own merits. gidonb (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true, and the most relevant observation in the list is that it took a long time before a Catholic PM was acceptable for the Protestants. That's also why there is a list of Catholic PMs, and not another for the other faiths as far as I could find. Between 1918 and 1980, the party and religion were also linked. Nowadays, faith plays a lesser role in Dutch politics and, for example, we don't know Schoof's current faith (other than him being raised Catholic). Dajasj (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. This raises the following question: If you agree that religion has been far more important over time than the education of a Dutch prime minister and a topic of heated debate, then what prompted you to nominate this list for deletion? You cite WP:NLIST. What in NLIST leads you to believe that this article might not be notable? gidonb (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well my comment was more nuanced, but you certainly raised a good point that I tried to reflect on. I still believe there are not many sources discussing the religion of MPs as a set. That's why I think it fails NLIST, although I understand if a different concensus is reached. The problem is also that religion and political parties were long intertwined. So when it mattered most (1918-1966), it is already included in the main list. Dajasj (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an abundance of sources on this topic. You cited its relevance yourself. After you could not find references, did you consider using the appropriate warning template? Why was it difficult for you to find sources? gidonb (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There had been a warning template for eight years... Anyway, I still disagree with you on the abundance of sources. Apart from the first one, they don't discuss them as a group (and mostly only the Catholics, but that might be because of your search). And like I mentioned before, being called a "Catholic Prime Minister" also refers to the political group they are part of. Mark Rutte is however generally not called a "Protestant PM" or Joop den Uyl a "Protestant PM".

But okay, if these sources and points indicate sufficient notability, I have misjudged this AfD and will withdraw it. Dajasj (talk) 07:02, 17 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 1500 metres. asilvering (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kgomotso Balotthanyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod. The added [9] source is really scraping the barrel for notability. It's a computer game database and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. In addition, NEXIST argument doesn't work when decent sources can't be found. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 7 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 Botswana. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on WP:NEXIST. NEXIST works even when decent sources aren't linked in the article, so long as it can be demonstrated that sources exist. I am curious about the nominator's interpretation of that guideline, which isn't stated anywhere in P&G.

See for example recent nominations WP:Articles for deletion/Joaquim Ferreira (athlete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adalberto García, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chae Hong-nak, etc. Balotthanyi and the forementioned athletes all have similar levels of coverage, but the only difference is the availability of Botswanan media in the 1980s on the Internet. In the near future, those archives might be made accessible and we can add the coverage to the article. --Habst (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Balotthanyi and the forementioned athletes all have similar levels of coverage'. Now that is blatantly a falsehood, now you're making things up to argue keep. Athlete articles that have been kept have solid sources. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, it's not false at all. Balotthanyi was one of the only Olympians from Botswana and based on the WP:Verifiable information we do have, his achievements demonstrate that coverage exists just as it did for Ferreire, Garcia, and Chae. Just because the articles aren't available on the internet and we can't find any via a web search doesn't mean that physical coverage shouldn't be considered. --Habst (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only verifiable info you found was from a computer game database. LibStar (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of falsehoods, that's not true at all. There's lot of WP:V information on the subject at WP:Tilastopaja ([10]), by Bill Mallon ([11]), World Athletics ([12]), etc. All of these databases are independently compiled meaning there were other sources for the information. --Habst (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, primary sources Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're primary because they're not affiliated with the subject at all nor were they even the 'original' source for their information (except maybe in the case of World Athletics which has a role in the Olympics). --Habst (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is blatantly a falsehood – how do you know he doesn't have any coverage in the Botswanan media? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do random African countries like Botswana even have physical newspaper archives? What if the papers just got thrown out, or lost to fire or war or something? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiOriginal-9, they have a national archives: https://www.gov.bw/culture/national-archives-research-enquiry Mass physical media tends to stick around. If the papers were thrown out, let's find a source saying that instead of assuming that it can't exist. --Habst (talk) 18:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 1500 metres where Balotthanyi's ninth place finish in a preliminary heat (13 seconds behind the heat winner) is recorded. A stand-alone article can't be supported here because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would rather talk about the substance than get bogged down in P&G discussion, but see WP:Articles for deletion/Mabel Saeluzika#c-Habst-20250308213100-Cbl62-20250308155700 for an explanation of why NEXIST is still valid from a P&G perspective. --Habst (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, no concrete reason to think that there "must" be sources. I share the opinion that Habst publishes many questionable statements. Geschichte (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Geschichte, you know I have a lot of respect for your contributions so I want to know what statements you're referring to. If there's a policy disagreement please air it here. --Habst (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have called out instances here and there of (1) misrepresentation of non-significant coverage as significant coverage (2) hyperbole regarding the merits of athletes (3) conflation of assumptions/guesses/opinions and reality. In the above discussion, I believe there to be an instance of #3. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the response. You're free to disagree about whether or not the achievements are indicative or further coverage -- I think a good counter-example would be the Ian Gray case, where the subject had similar achievements, delete !votes were cast, and then the coverage was finally found and that turned the tides. I appreciate your perspective either way, but I think this should be a similar case. --Habst (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I closed this earlier today as "redirect" given the consensus that has developed and the lack of support for the "keep" !voter's NEXIST argument. (See my rationale here.) However, after a talk page request from Habst, I am self-reverting -- not because I believe the close was erroneous but because my personal commitment is to self-revert any non-admin close, if I receive a good-faith request to do so, and leave it for an admin to handle. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was just going to close as Redirect but since DClemens' was just contentious, let's give it more time here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Athletics at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 1500 metres: Since Star has relisted, I evaluated the sources as a participant rather than as a closer. I agree with the other redirect !voters that no one has offered the sufficient examples of WP:SIGCOV necessary to demonstrate WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. And I am confused by Habst's invocation of WP:NEXIST: NEXIST works even when decent sources aren't linked in the article, so long as it can be demonstrated that sources exist. But no one has demonstrated that qualifying SIGCOV exists; the only sources offered here are database sources and a single passing mention on an WP:SPS video game site. NEXIST is not a blanket permission slip for editors to assert the existence of qualifying sources. As the guideline states, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Perhaps sources will come to light someday; if and when that happens, this page's history will be available to permit expansion as a standalone article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know why no one has demonstrated that qualifying SIGCOV exists? Its because no one has looked at Botswanan newspapers! I can agree that merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive – but the key word is seldom – if no search whatsoever has been done in any sources from the athlete's nation, and if that athlete has significant accomplishments almost certain to have generated coverage, then it can certainly be reasonable to use NEXIST on that basis. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you looked? It is nowhere demanded that nominator or participant search every possible venue, but I am open to revisiting my !vote if someone identifies sufficient sourcing. As I’ve already said, a redirect will preserve the page history for the time when someone does unearth the sources you claim must exist but no one has supplied. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have access to Botswanan newspapers, and it doesn't seem anyone else here does either. But suggesting someone trying to delete an article should look at sources from a subject's nation isn't "demanding that [everyone] search every possible venue". Would it make sense to suggest the deletion of a prominent American athlete on the basis that "no sources were found when looking at Australian newspaper archives"? No, and neither should it make sense to delete all these Olympians on the basis that "non-Botswanan searches did not bring up sigcov". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This doesn’t seem productive anymore so I’ll let this be my last word, but the nominator appears to have done a BEFORE and there is no requirement to search in any particular country’s archives. You are welcome to interpret NEXIST in what seems to me a rather strained way; I have like other participants recommended an alternative that preserves the page history without compromising our requirements for sourcing (particularly for a BLP, where we really ought not be loose about sourcing). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just say to respond to "the nominator appears to have done a BEFORE", I actually have a lot of respect for the nominator but comments on recent AfDs like WP:Articles for deletion/Joaquim Ferreira (athlete) have indicated there were BEFORE issues in the recent past. --Habst (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Habst. I'm also always weary of deleting notable Africans who were notable at their time before the dawn of the internet age and social media. From my experience, their notability is in many (if not most) case, verifiable from certain archives and other out of print material that might not be available on the internet. I'm weary of just voting delete especially ntable African figures, because I know very well that most African archives / materials have not yet been digitized and made available on the net. Tamsier (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamsier: I have been editing Wikipedia for 18 years. A substantial part of my efforts has been focused on expanding Wikipedia's coverage of notable athletes and teams. Nobody in the above discussion has voted to "delete". There are three votes to "redirect" which would lead the reader to the results page where the same information currently in the biography is repeated. A redirect would also preserve the article history. If SIGCOV is later found or becomes available, the redirect can easily be reversed and the SIGCOV added. The community expressed profound frustration with these mass-created sub-stubs, and a redirect is a reasonable solution -- and far better than a full "delete". If editors continue to frustrate and filibuster such redirects, even in cases like this where guidelines are clear in mandating SIGCOV, the likely result is that the broader community (led by some anti-sports editors who would like to see a dramatic rollback of legitimate encyclopedic efforts to cover notable pre-interent athletes) will re-focus on the issue and move for a much more draconian remedy. Let's not encourage that by resisting a simple redirect of an article where diligent efforts have not at this time uncovered any SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 16 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.

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 merge‎ to Victoria, Oriental Mindoro#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is an unsourced article with a single line saying it exists. The only source I've found (disclaimer: I'm not very good at it) is a Facebook page for the school. Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to Victoria, Oriental Mindoro. This is a small private school in a small provincial city. By sheer coincidence, I'm in the Philippines right now, so I'm able to search on Philippines Google. There are three similarly named schools in the Manila area alone, one in Capiz, and a Sunday school in Boracay. Sources for this school are sketchy to unreliable (PinoyCode.com, Their Facebook page). Since English is the language of instruction for high schools in the Philippines, searches for Cebuano language or other languages would be fruitless. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Victoria,_Oriental_Mindoro#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --Loewstisch (talk) 09:17, 17 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry#Michigan winning streak (2021–2024). There is no consensus whether to delete or to redirect, but a consensus to do one of these as opposed to anything else. I've opted for redirect to make it easier to merge the article's content if deemed appropriate. Those in favor for deletion can take the page to WP:RFD for a more focused discussion, but please ping the involved editors here. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 10:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just another edition of the Michigan–Ohio State college football rivalry series; no WP:LASTING significance to set it apart from any other typical meeting between Michigan and Ohio State, and there is no indication that the game deserves a standalone article. The sources and information cited in the article all point to WP:ROUTINE coverage from what I can see. Similar situation to this 2024 rivalry meeting and this 2024 game which ended in an upset, both of which were deleted at AfD late last year. Any information specific to this game can be merged to Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry, 2024 Michigan Wolverines football team, or 2024 Ohio State Buckeyes football team if necessary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Michigan, and Ohio. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely WP:ROTM other than the fight, which can be discussed in full at Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment the following was added to my nomination statement by the author of the article (User:RockCrusher6), unsigned; I have removed it and displayed it here as written: This was a significant game of the 2024 season, and other significant upsets of the season, such as [Alabama vs. Vanderbilt football game|Alabama-Vanderbilt], have their own articles. This article details not just the game but the resulting fight, which was very significant at the time. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RockCrusher6: in response to your comment, please note that the sole fact that the Bama–Vandy page exists is not grounds to keep this article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    PCN02WPS, you cited the deletion of two similar articles (2024 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game, 2024 Northern Illinois vs. Notre Dame football game) in your nomination. So, it seems only fair to counter with similar examples that haven't been deleted (2024 Alabama vs. Vanderbilt football game). "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is often (usually?) a terrible invocation, and ought to be trumped by the principle of parallelism. We want to consistent, equal treatment of analogous things on Wikipedia. Specifically, here, we want to draw a consistent line around these stand-alone articles for college football games. Maybe the 2024 Bama–Vandy game is such more historically significant than this game. But we should assess that, not dismiss the comparison. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry#Michigan winning streak (2021–2024) is the place to summarize this meeting of rivals, as well as 2024 Ohio State Buckeyes football team#vs Michigan (rivalry) and 2024 Michigan Wolverines football team#at No. 2 Ohio State (rivalry). Regardless that the team with the worse (but still winning) record beat the team with the better record, there's no need for a standalone article for a routine game here. Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or redirect/merge into the rivalry page and the 2024 season pages for both teams. There is no lasting effects of the fight (a quick google search showed the only mentions being in the week after the game, and retrospectives on the Buckeyes season after the national championship game hardly mention the fight), and the game itself was pretty routine in the rivalry. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 18:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' or redirect per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Run of the mill upset with no long term significance. I'm against a redirect for the same reasons. I've been trying to catch these sorts of pages and send them to AFD but I missed this. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this game is a particularly notable one in the rivalry, and I agree with the comment by Jweiss11 earlier in this discussion. Additionally, the fight that broke out means this article has an aspect that allows it to transcend past run of the mill tagging. I would not call this ROTM in terms of the upset result either, given that Michigan were significant 20.5 dogs and as a 7-5 team defeated what would become the national champion. Also, not currently present in the article is an official acknowledgement by an Ohio politician: representative Josh Williams who introduced a bill to make flag planting a felony in Ohio. This was a direct response to the post-game incident. Soulbust (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was not a ROTM upset. This was one of the defining moments of the 2024 FBS season, and it involved a 6-5 team beating the eventual national champion. This was by far the biggest upset in the history of this rivalry, and the fight that broke out after makes this a very notable game that deserves its own article. Other notable upsets in 2024, such as the 2024 Alabama vs. Vanderbilt football game have their own Wikipedia page, and they did not involve the eventual national champion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RockCrusher6 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all above. Anything worth saying about this game already has ample space for coverage at Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry, 2024 Michigan Wolverines football team, and 2024 Ohio State Buckeyes football team. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others and merge remaining information to the appropriate pages. If a redirect is deemed appropriate, the best one would likely be the rivalry page. Conyo14 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Point toward the rivalry page. I would argue for the deletion of the other "important" games listed in the discussion here as well for the sake of consistency. Upsets relatively frequently. Such events are not so improbably that they deserve their own articles. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do not redirect. It was a large upset, but one of several large upsets that occur every year, and its significance was largely diminished with Ohio State eventually winning the national championship. Some information already exists at the rivalry page and/or the 2024 Michigan or Ohio State team pages. A WP:COSTLY redirect seems unnecessary as a run of the mill regular season game is an unlikely search term. Frank Anchor 03:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is WP:ROTM. As for a fight starting, there is nothing special about that. There was a brawl of sorts at the end of the recent Everton v Liverpool game, but I would never expect to see an article on here about that particular match—it might be mentioned in their rivalry article, also in Arne Slot, and perhaps in Curtis Jones and Abdoulaye Doucouré. The same applies to any game in any form of football. Spartathenian (talk) 13:48, 21 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuba–Sutter Regional Arts Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No obvious ATD since it supports both Yuba County and Sutter. No org level coverage so we're here. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and California. Star Mississippi 16:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete- I did manage to find only two sources about this council, but they still do not help notability.

  https://www.appeal-democrat.com/y-s-arts-council-business-manager-dismissed-director-suspended/article_bb297ede-a28e-592f-90db-a89ab8848664.html?=/&subcategory=37%7CMusic

  https://www.capradio.org/articles/2017/09/17/utility-boxes-become-works-of-art-in-yuba-and-sutter-counties/ ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 16:12, 17 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taku Morinaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hasn't played since 2019, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Other than the The Straits Times article (which is already in the article), here's what I found,
  • Gekisaka,
  • Yahoo News,
  • Yahoo Sports (though I doubt this has WP:SIGCOV but seems like it)
  • Yahoo News
  • Gekisaka
  • Gekisaka

It's hard looking for the guy as Takuro Morinaga has the same character as him. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Per the sources presented by Miminity. It's enough for a stub. Svartner (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 15:59, 14 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.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie and Wendy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reception/analysis, brief commentary on who played them in the film. Fails WP:GNG. At best, can be redirected to List of Sin City characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very significant coverage in Farrimond, K. (2017). The Contemporary Femme Fatale: Gender, Genre and American Cinema,Taylor & Francis, p. 42.; also in LoBrutto, V. (2019). The Art and Craft of Motion Pictures: 25 Movies to Make You Film Literate. Bloomsbury Publishing (although that book's approach is confusing in my view); interesting section on both characters and their treatment and meaning in Color and the Moving Image: History, Theory, Aesthetics, Archive. (2013). Taylor & Francis. At worst, a Redirect. Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 23:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:GNG. See page, thank you. -Mushy Yank. 23:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 23:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY by Mushy Yank – article has now improved a lot and the sources provided by Mushy show GNG and analysis. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mushy Yank and DaniloDaysOfOurLives. BD2412 T 03:19, 16 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disc2Phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing in the article or in my query suggests this meets WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 14 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OSL Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article was previously nominated and deleted before. Current version still lacks independent in-depth sources and requirements are even more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 12:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 12:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Engineering, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article about a company, created a couple of months after the previous instance was deleted. Looking at Companies House, the earlier Optimus Services Ltd which is mentioned in the article text went into administration in 2021 [13]; OSL Consulting Engineers Ltd was set up in 2020 [14]. The present article is largely a brochure about the firm's engagement in two projects; I agree with the late DGG's assessment in the 2013 AfD. A firm going about its business, but lacking evidence of attained notability in their own right. OSL appear to have been acquired recently by Nexos Solutions [15] but there is no article on that firm which could provide a WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 14 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parbat Herbal Co (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No WP:RS found. Taabii (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and India. Taabii (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, as on WP:BEFORE I didn’t found any reliable source on this company. It may be created for promotional purposes TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Medicine, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Its abysmal reall. scope_creep^Talk 20:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article. Poor sources that are poor with passing mentions. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 19:09, 19 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.

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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article has been deleted before as the subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG. The subject has done nothing in the meantime that makes the subject meet that threshold now. He doesn’t meet the relevant SNG. Tvx1 19:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Motorsport. Tvx1 19:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (article creator). I never read the old version of the article, but from my understanding of the AfD, it was very sloppeley. The current state of the article meets WP:GNG, as it has three reliable, independent, and reliable sources: Reference 3 [16] Reference 8 [17], Reference 10 [18], and Reference 11 [19]. Further, Reference 2 [20] and Reference 4 [21] are both independent and reliable, but are simply announcements. I would be willing to elaborate or clarify if needed. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  References 8 and 10 are WP:ROUTINE coverage and Reference 11 is scant at best. I have, however, found these: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Seems that coming from two obscure (racing) countries is of great help for SIGCOV. MSport1005 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I probably wouldn't of been able to find these myself. Implementing some of them now. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete - While a reasonable number of sources do seem to exist, they essentially seem to fall under WP:ONEEVENT, namely "being a junior level racing driver from the Philippines who races under a Maltese licence". As always with these teenage sub-F3-level drivers my stance remains unchanged that what sources there are about them would be better used to flesh out the articles about the season(s) they have competed in, and we should have exceedingly high notability standards for WP:BLPs of WP:MINORS. If this driver wins the FRECA or Super Formula Lights title then the situation may change within the next year, so draftifying the article could be preferable as an WP:AtD, but generally I am not convinced that a driver at this level can ever be considered notable unless it is for reasons outside of motorsport. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Under my interpretation, WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here. Sure, he has an increased chance of receiving significant coverage due to his nationalit(ies), but that does not mean he is only notable for one event (as the policy intends). He has received coverage about his participation in various series, from karting, to F4, to FRECA; not his participation in one specific event.

  Further, what would you consider "exceedingly high notability standards"? WP:MINORS does not set out specific standards for Minor BLPs as a whole, but primarily discusses controversial/contentious statements.

  While I do understand your opinion about sub-F3 driver articles, I see no reason for titles or specific achievements should be taken into account providing that the article meets GNG. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think the article can do better if it was draftified as per the commentator above Codonified (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - ABS-CBN is an excellent source, but I'm not sure about the others. He's just barely there. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The source in the article are reliable, and credible. There are source that valid from the team itself, the racing series he raced, motorsport news, and national news. Some may not familiar because they are not involve in the motorsport scene to know if the source is credible. But rest assured the article source are valid. Thfeeder (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of the sources is not the issue here.Tvx1 06:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's no problem then. Why you want a speedy deletion on a driver which already have enough reliable source, racing in credible known racing series? The article in the past was deleted because there was not enough source and too young to be establish. But as of now he is. Thfeeder (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was a consensus that he isn’t notable enough and such consensus should not be ignored. That he passes now is nothing but your personal opinion. He finished in a meaningless position in Formula Regional. That’s nowhere near notable. Tvx1 22:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every year there's a new influx of young drivers who enter these junior formulae. Some of them will go onto stardom and many more will fade into obscurity, but unless there's sustained coverage of their involvement in F1 team's junior programmes (see Arvid Lindblad for a current example), most of the coverage of them is either WP:ROUTINE mentions in what is actually coverage of the series they compete in, or sources which are fairly WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature and generally do more to indicate that a driver has a good publicist than they indicate any actual claim to notability. The issue from a Wikipedia editor's perspective is twofold: First, WP:BLPs of children are a potential ethical minefield and should really only be created in cases where the individual's notability is unquestionable. Wikipedia should not become some gossip site dedicated to disseminating information about random teenagers who happen to have participated in fifth-tier sporting events. Secondly, the large-scale creation of these articles about obscure individuals who may-or-may-not become more noteworthy in the future leaves a trail of WP:BLPs behind that need to be constantly monitored for vandalism and other-such issues. Ultimately, being WP:FAMOUS isn't necessarily a good thing, and preventing defamation from being spread about people who aren't really public figures (yet, at least) usually means that we should avoid having articles about people who aren't public figures. There's also the issue of editors attention being directed to the wrong places. Often the articles about these young drivers receive a disproportionate amount of initial effort from editors who try to fit any reference that mentions them into the article in an attempt to demonstrate supposed notability, when in reality that effort would be far better directed towards editting the articles about the seasons they have competed in, which are often noticeably underdeveloped. This is where WP:ONEEVENT becomes relevant. While these young drivers may not literally be notable for just one single event, they still generally lack notability independent of the few events they have competed in. Having separate articles about them tends to come across to me as more of an attempt to create a database than it does a meaningful expansion of said underdeveloped articles. In this case we see a driver who is certainly teetering on the edge of notability, and if this was an article about a type of animal or a building or a person who lived hundreds of years ago, then I would say the subject meets the WP:GNG, but personally I think much higher standards of notability have to be applied to WP:BLPs of seventeen year olds. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being a BLP, it would be helpful to see a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the sources identified by MSport1005 are enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. I disagree with HumanBodyPiloter5's assertion that the subject is notable for WP:ONEEVENT - these sources cover more than that. I also disagree with the WP:MINOR argument, which will soon become moot anyway, since the subject is already 17 years old.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the sources available are enough to pass WP:GNG.Frank Ken (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think this meets WP:NMOTORSPORT. There are a lot of references but, as is typically the case with sport, the coverage seems routine to me. I think if we consider the broader aspect of WP:ONEEVENT in that the races are all of a similar class, and of low importance, then the article fails that guideline. So, although there are several sources, I don't think they provide enough coverage for WP:SPORTCRIT. Spartathenian (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NMOTORSPORT is a significant coverage suggestion, and not a definitive notability guideline. Further, could you elaborate on what WP:SPORTCRIT policy you are referring to (I don't believe that this article violates any of those bullet points)? GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi, GalacticVelocity08. SPORTCRIT requires significant coverage beyond the routine. In my opinion, this article is below that bar. Thanks. Spartathenian (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, reference 2 (ABS-CBN), Reference 3 (Lovin Malta), Reference 5 (Visor.ph), and Reference 14 (Malta Independent) are non-routine and reliable secondary sources. Further, the sources that are routine (Formula Scout and Feeder Series) can still count towards notability.

  (also, apologizes if my messages sound snarky, it's not intentional; I'm not the best at talk page writing) GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These sources are not independent enough. They strem either from the Philippines, wherehe is from, or from Malta, whose racing licence he uses. They are clearly promotional in nature. Tvx1 17:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because the sources are from the Philippines and Malta, that doesn't make them promotional. If a mainly British driver has British sources, that doesn't mean its promotional. Sources that were obviously promotional were specifically not included in the article; and if they were, it was for additional facts, and not for GNG/meeting policies. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have the time to dig through old AfDs to find the exact example, but we've seen the exact same thing come up with at-least one young British driver before in my memory, where there was a flurry of coverage from the BBC or wherever that essentially just amounted to "British kid competes in Formula 4 after winning some karting events, could they be the next Jenson Button?", but the sustained in-depth coverage wasn't there to warrant an article and it was quite obvious that said driver had just hired a well-connected publicist. It's not the specific nationality or nationalities in question that are the issue, it's just a general trend of young drivers whose claim to notability essentially just comes down to "having a sufficiently well-connected publicist to get the passing attention of local media", which is why people will still say that these drivers are cases of WP:ONEEVENT. When it comes down to it, I don't think that the creators of these articles have any ulterior motives in creating large numbers of articles about random WP:MINORS, it's just a desire to create some sort of comprehensive database rubbing up against Wikipedia's goal of creating a prose encyclopaedia, but I would like to ask for some amount of WP:COMMONSENSE and self awareness on the part of said editors about how compiling large amounts of information about children you don't know might come across to other people. Personally it still makes me quite uncomfortable, even with a reasonable level of familiarity with the situation and editing landscape, but I suspect many people who are less invested in Wikipedia editing and the culture surrounding it would have some rather less civil comments on the matter. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The way the articles you mention are written is promotional. They amount to “look what great drivers come from our country/drive under our flag”. They are not independent enough. They are very weak with regards to notability. Tvx1 17:42, 22 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.

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of prime ministers of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, not notable enough, more than half of the list is empty and lack significant in-depth coverage in the news. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 09:23, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have expanded this article with multiple reliable secondary sources and it is now a better article than it was at the time of nomination TheSlumPanda (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To sustain a list, we don't need to source the items one by one, we need sources that corroborate "Indian prime minister nicknames" as being a notable group as such. Without that, this is headed to WP:DAFT. Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards delete. I'm thinking this is making a list for the sake of making a list. It might be notable because it is about prime ministers, but for the wrong reasons. If retained, it will probably have to be permanently protected. Spartathenian (talk) 11:37, 21 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.

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Thiago José Silva Barboza de Paula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pure WP:BLPCRIME violation, person not otherwise notable and only accused, not convicted. Fram (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Brazil. Fram (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No relevant repercussions about what happened, and also no encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom's rationale. Looks like someone read a news article, and thought this would make a good article for an encyclopedia. Wrong. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  no need to be rude about it, when have you ever heard of an ISIS supporter getting arrested in south america? just thought it was intresting. JaxsonR (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, nothing to show this passes nevent anyway PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems BLPCRIME is pretty clear on the issue🙏🏽 (here from this being tagged in wikiproject brazil, hi, hello)User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 00:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely fails the BLPCRIME criteria, and does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. Spartathenian (talk) 11:26, 21 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.

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎ as WP:G5 by Ponyo (talk · contribs). --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bustamante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unreliable sources dominate the article sourcing. Attempt to move it to draft was aborted because a copy of it already exist in the draft space Ednabrenze (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. This reads like a personal resume. — Maile (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Military, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• CU note I've deleted this under WP:CSD#G5 after blocking the creator for socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:01, 14 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.

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celon Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An article on a pharmaceuticals company, sourced to their own site. The article makes bold claims, of the benefits of their new drug "for curing schizophrenia"; I can see a Reuters report, but that is essentially the company founder predicting a great future. Other than that, searches find stock price discussions and announcements about other drugs,falling under WP:CORPTRIV. Clearly a company going about its business (in a sector where caution is needed about repeating predictive claims), but I am not seeing the coverage of the company itself needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Poland. AllyD (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Additionally, the list of "developed drugs" is misleading; they are all generics. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once I got rid of the promotional fluff in the article, it doesn't have anything left that reveals notability to fulfill WP:CORP. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as no notable and promotional --Loewstisch (talk) 09:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very similar to one the other day which was also promotional. Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. Spartathenian (talk) 11:20, 21 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.

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. I cannot process this rationale. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tibrewal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article’s incredible articulation outguesses the dependency on self-intoned topicality, while most of the content unreasonably snips the orated extroversion WP:Oral. Remember, there are still distended verses without any cosplayed notable referencing WP:OR Sailedwarrior (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, and India. Sailedwarrior (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 14 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Vali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability Shkuru Afshar (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. From a brief search there seem to be more than enough reviews of his books to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Reviews of Pre-Capitalist Iran: A Theoretical History: [28] [29] [30]. Reviews of Kurds and the State in Iran: The Making of Kurdish Identity: [31] [32] [33]. Reviews of Kurdish Nationalism in Iran: The Forgotten Years (1947-1979): [34] [35]. MCE89 (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added MCE89's reviews and more; they give him a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. He also has a case for WP:PROF#C6 as head of the University of Kurdistan Hewler. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Without considering his other resume, due to being the head of the University of Kurdistan Hewler, meets WP:PROF. Gedaali (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep If the subject does indeed meet WP:GNG, additional, and better, sourcing should be available and the article improved Variety312 (talk) 17:35, 20 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see evidence in the sourcing (or anywhere that I look) that "public image of Eminem" is an independently notable topic from Eminem ꧁Zanahary꧂ 07:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are separate public image articles for other notable musicians. It appears this article was created to reduce the excessive length of the main Eminem article. I₂Overcome ^talk 11:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Eminem's article is currently having a tag for being too long. I can confirm that Public image of Eminem was created specifically to recude the length of the main article. Now I'm not an expert in Eminem, so anyone can feel free to add more necessary information but it's obvious that we can't keep all of that information in Eminem's article. Hubert555 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this split is desirable per WP:LENGTH of the main article. When an article is too large, consider breaking it into smaller articles, spinning part of it out into a new article. Full disclosure: I was the editor who added the too long tag to the main article. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Popular culture. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I do believe his public image is notable enough for a standalone article, + the length of his main article is a concern, which this article helps solve. jolielover♥talk 18:46, 15 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ju-na (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SINGER. None of her releases have charted, been certified, or received awards. Most of the articles that mention her are about her relationship with Kim Soo-hyun. Smiski (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Korea. Smiski (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I suppose there would be more in Korean sources, this was all I could find [36], [37]. The Korean wiki article only has links to social media, so no help with sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:41, 14 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Kiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable singer. No notable productions. Claims multiple awards but none are major, most from Country Gospel Music Association, clearly not major. Claimed Emmy is regional. Sourced with primary sources and listings and like much of the OPs work uses fake info in the references. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The material available on the subject suggests that he could possibly be notable (his involvement in formal organizations of artists is a positive indication), I don't see enough at present to justify retention of the article. I'll keep an eye out in Virginia papers just in case that changes! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Delete per duffbeerforme seems like a complete vanity project. Variety312 (talk) 17:47, 20 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.

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 delete‎. czar 02:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Finnish mountaineers who have conquered eight-thousanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This list and fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOR. There is precisely one source (the Finnish Alpine Club's list of Finns who have climbed 8000 m peaks, which itself cites en-wiki and fi-wiki as sources), and the page admits up top that it has been updated via the page creator's primary source research. The other sources are a mix of off-topic sources ("general information on each mountain" that is WP:UNDUE here) and unreliable/primary sources like SummitPost. This subject fails WP:NLIST because the only source that discusses these mountaineers as a group is the Finnish Alpine Club, which is a membership group not independent of Finnish mountaineers. And it fails WP:CROSSCAT as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Contested draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Finland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable people, unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Reywas92^Talk 02:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Madeleine (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, all valid reasons

SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE jolielover♥talk 18:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I would be even hesitant to consider this something worthy of being a category. If a topic can only be turned into an article using original research, it's not suitable for Wikipedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:45, 20 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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grand City Properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Part of a series of articles created by User:Hilit.schenkel who is now blocked for advertising. Article was disputed for PROD by a WP:SPA. Article is heavily promotional in breach of WP:SPAM even after so many edits and will have to be redone to comply with wiki policy. In addition listed companies are expected to be but not inherently notable. Current sourcing of company to fulfill WP:NCORP is quite weak especially for a listed company. Imcdc Contact 03:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Europe, and Luxembourg. Imcdc Contact 03:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The page - article content was changed to maintain a neutral and informative voice. Please do not delete it. Danielwish (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2025 (UTC) SPA user has few edits outside of the article up for deletion and its owner.[reply]

  Please disclose your relation to Grand City Properties if you have any. Imcdc Contact 08:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I work for Aroundtown SA. Aroundtown invests in commercial and residential real estate which benefits from strong fundamentals and growth prospects. Aroundtown invests in residential real estate through its subsidiary Grand City Properties S.A. ("GCP")

  https://www.aroundtown.de/company Danielwish (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:COI, please do not make any further direct edits to Grand City Properties and familiarize yourself with the policy. Imcdc Contact 01:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unlike Aroundtown SA, I don't have any more patience to assist paid editors (especially those who originally did not disclose). The page is TNT worthy and I already performed HEY on one of them. I would suggest merging this into Aroundtown SA (a SINGLE paragraph that simply states who they are and what they do - no advertorial language). --CNMall41 (talk) 06:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In this discussion is a suggestion to Merge this article into Aroundtown SA. Any opinions on this option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why a merger with Aroundtown SA is being considered. These are different companies, publicly listed under different symbols, and holding different types of assets—commercial vs. residential real estate. @CNMall41 did a great job salvaging Aroundtown SA. I'll do some research over the weekend and will try to salvage this one as well. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Hightex (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, SPA. I went ahead a struck that comment. Sticking with delete instead. Thank you for pointing that out. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:SALT - everyone knows that we are not a free pennysaver. My problem isn't with paid editing, but with spamming a charity's website and the protection racket that develops. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 15 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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amare Ferrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am struggling to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. There are two pieces from the same author from The Herald-Times (1, 2), which counts as one solid source. However, most other coverage approaching SIGCOV is relegated to team-specific blogs written by non-notable sportswriters (Indiana Hoosiers on SI, HoosierHuddle, TheHoosier.com, etc.). This author, for example, has only ever written for Indiana Hoosiers on SI and The Hoosier Network since recently graduating from college. JTtheOG (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Florida, and Indiana. JTtheOG (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In addition to the Herald-Times SIGCOV linked by JT (part 1/part 2), my searches turned up this (part 1/part 2). Cbl62 (talk) 05:02, 11 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!} 01:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Second set of sources gives just enough for a weak keep, with the ones listed in the first bolded point, I think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These are also from the same author. JTtheOG (talk) 00:46, 16 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.

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 02:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snake in the Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:NEPISODE. There is nothing beyond a summary. And googling the topic reveals one independent review and some review aggregators, which is not enough for notability. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did find some additional independent recaps of the episode [38][39] as well as an interview w/ some cast sort of rooted-ish in the episode's reveals [40]. I also found it mentioned briefly in a few books [41][42], but despite this I think we still fall short of WP:NEPISODE here per "The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps" and given that the scholarly sources are just mentions. The AV club source in the article is the most substantial coverage I can find, and I think we would need at least one more WP:RS w/ significant analysis (beyond a recap) to justify a standalone article. Zzz plant (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is sufficient coverage such as avclub.com and douxreviews.com, inquiriesjournal, chicagotribune.com, washingtonian.com, Entertainment Weekly etc. Drushrush (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly certain doux reviews is user generated and there for unrelaible Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the reviews found by Drushrush while they seem pretty routine I would say that most TV episodes from that time would be notable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:41, 6 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!} 02:28, 7 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!} 01:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarifying what I meant above, most episodes of a decently popular shows released from late 2000s to early 2020s received pretty consistent levels of coverage. While sometimes all you get is a plot recap, a few reviews can be enough to establish WP:SIGCOV for atleast a start or c class article. While this isn't ideal for GA's its okay for a run of the mill article Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 09:12, 19 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.

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 Deleted under WP:CSD#G5 as created by abusive sockpuppet of User:Bmusique99; long term abuse‎. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B Major (South african Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I considered leaving put this incarnation of an article that has been speedy-deleted and AFDed many, many times, in conjunction with blocks on a litany of sockpuppets. The difference this time is that a number of sources were new and a few, at first glance, looked substantial. But then they fell apart on further inspection, and notability still appears not to have been reached.

After I removed all the "refs" that were really download links, for all the individual songs listed, that originally appeared in the article, I'm left with six. Here's my assessment of them.

• "Major hit in the making: Mitchells Plain muso drops new album". www.dailyvoice.co.za. Retrieved 13 March 2025. I'm puzzled that this is in Spanish on a Spanish website. Nevertheless, it's a brief article of some substance. Yet, the site describes itself as "Un medio para la libertad de información: Free Press Info es un sitio web especializado en la difusión de información periodística, publicidad y marketing por Internet; en defensa de la libertad de expresión" ("A medium for the free dissemination of information: Free Press Info is a web site specializing in the publication of journalistic information, publicity, and marketing via the Internet ...". I'm reading this as "self-published article".
• Kujjo, Keji (7 December 2021). "Tuesday Interviews: B Major". Gazeti. Archived from the original on 12 February 2023. Retrieved 14 March 2025. It's an interview.
• Grootboom, Jamal. "YoungstaCPT responds to claims that '1000 Mistakes' music composition was stolen". www.iol.co.za. Retrieved 13 March 2025. This is the one source of the six that I've seen before. It's really about YoungstaCPT; I don't feel it conveys any sense of Martin's significance.
• Esack, Fuad (28 February 2024). "Martin's Matters of the Heart is Mitchell's Plain Bjorn and bred". Plainsman. Retrieved 12 March 2025. Most of this is just quoting Martin, and the publication, the Plainsman, is local to a single district of Cape Town, Mitchells Plains, where Martin is from. The footer of the page tells us that its distribution area is defined by two shopping districts ("This long established popular community title includes the key shopping centres the Promenade Mall and Town Centre Shopping Centre within its distribution area."). So it's a local-boy profile.
• Brooks, Anthony Davidson (22 July 2024). "B Major SA: South African Music Producer Gains Acclaim with Award Nomination at Cape Town Artist Awards". Hype Music. Retrieved 13 March 2025. This article looks promising, especially if the publisher is, as the masthead claims, "South Africa's No. 1 Hip Hop Magazine".
• Dean, Marsha (2 August 2023). "Major hit in the making: Mitchells Plain muso drops new album". www.dailyvoice.co.za. Retrieved 13 March 2025. The publisher looks OK but it looks like a PR insertion as it begins "Mitchells Plain music producer and composer Bjorn Martin, aka B Major, is thrilled to announce" and consists mostly of quotes by him.

To me, that leaves the Brooks article as the only one with merit. I'm not finding anything further via Google.

Additional information added after my nomination

Previous deletion discussions:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (Music Producer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (South African musician)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (record producer)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major SA
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B major (person)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-major

Now I'm reminded that the Free Press Info citation has been considered before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (South African musician) Largoplazo (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Largoplazo (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

@Largoplazo Thank you for reviewing the article. I’d like to clarify a few points regarding notability and the reliability of sources:

Notability (WP:MUSICBIO & WP:GNG)

B Major SA meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO) as he has:

A best-selling song on notable music service Qobuz (Another Life).

A Cape Town Artist Awards nomination, an independent industry recognition.

Coverage in multiple independent sources.

Reliable Sources (WP:RS)

Hype Music: Describes itself as “South Africa’s No. 1 Hip Hop Magazine,” making it a strong industry source.

IOL & Daily Voice: These are established South African media outlets that frequently cover the country’s music scene. IOL, in particular, is widely recognized as a reliable source.

Plainsman: While local, still it is an independent publication with editorial oversight, making it a valid secondary source.

Gazeti Interview: While interviews alone are not enough for notability, they supplement coverage rather than define it.

The fact that multiple sources independently covered his achievements suggests he is notable within the South African music industry.

If there were past deletions, this version of the article contains substantially improved sourcing and meets notability requirements better than previous iterations.

I respectfully request that the article not be deleted and instead be improved if necessary. JoshuaDello (talk) 06:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"IOL & Daily Voice: These are established South African media outlets that frequently cover the country’s music scene. IOL, in particular, is widely recognized as a reliable source." even though the article isn't about him it qualifies for facts. The fact that B Major does exist and his real name is Bjorn Martin from Cape town. Its Coming from a high quality trusted source. Daily Voice writes in different styles even Afrikaans mixed with English so the writing might not always look professional but all writing and publishing is done by editorial oversight and they are qualified journalists who often writes about the South African entertainment and music industry. JoshuaDello (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FreePressInfo although is an overseas media outlet has written about Bjorn, proving that his presence and art is reaching places beyond Cape town, before adding Freepressinfo as a source i did research to see if the outlet had any editorial oversight. which is does as it publishes many news stories a day im sure that a media outlet wont just publish something without editorial oversight. this includes all the publications used in this article. The one thing which make these 6 sources strong enough to keep article is their editorial oversight. It is secondary from the subject and should be treated as such no matter how it was written. it is also not an Paid Advertise or articles as most articles will have a banner or text saying the article was paid for.. this is natural coverage over the years please pay attention to dates as well. JoshuaDello (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please agree to disagree that the subject is covered enough to either forge a stub article as time suggests that the subject is relevant in this time and age meaning more likely to accomplish greater things in the industry. As the information is taken from different news oulets to create one story is substantial enough for the subject to warrant a stand alone "start article" or "stub article".

kind regards

Josh D. JoshuaDello (talk) 07:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i did research to see if the outlet had any editorial oversight. which is does as it publishes many news stories a day im sure that a media outlet wont just publish something without editorial oversight. First you said you did research and ascertained that it has editorial oversight, but then you reasoned that it must have editorial oversite because of a premise that you're sure of. This suggests to me that you haven't actually ascertained it, you've only concluded it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (South African musician), where Hammersoft noted Looking at freepressinfo.com and scanning the current articles in each section...every single one of them is written by the guy who founded the site. It's effectively a self published source. If you've ascertained it, could you supply the source for that information? A lack of editorial oversight doesn't limit the number of stories that can be printed each day.

Unfortunately, you haven't said anything that alleviates any of the concerns I expressed. I covered my consideration of the 021 Awards in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Major (record producer). Hammersoft assessed the Daily Voice: The Daily Voice, as a source to support notability of this person, has been used many times in the past without success. Largoplazo (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You provided one citation for the Qobuz claim. I deleted it because it doesn't say anything about it being a best-selling song, or about its ratings at all, and because it was just a music download page. Largoplazo (talk) 16:07, 14 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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chakma martial arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This (likely LLM-generated) article is based on entirely hallucinated or fabricated citations. They simply don't exist, none of them. No search results come back for these text strings. Examples: There is no book called Indigenous Peoples of Bangladesh by an R. Ahmed from Dhaka University Press. The International Journal of Cultural Studies published volume 13 in 2010, not volume 16, and no article by this title appears in its archives. Archive.org has never once recorded a site at chakmaheritage.org. I was hesitant to file an A11 or a G4 since I think some admins might be reluctant to delete something with purported sources, but anyone who looks closely will see this is plainly made up. The only source Google turns up for this topic is a university webpage that does not cover the topic but only serves up advertising spam. The subject obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTHOAX. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:HOAX. The South Asian Martial Arts Review, really...? Madeleine (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above discussion. Please also do check Chakma history and Chakma Kingdom created by the same user, either needs to be rephrased/merged/deleted. Imwin567 (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Imwin567 At least some of the sources on Chakma history are real. Chakma Kingdom is LONG and I'm guessing has mostly fabricated sources, but I don't have time right now to BEFORE that topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. @Dclemens1971: I went ahead and created a deletion discussion for Chakma Kingdom – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakma Kingdom. There was a merge discussion on the talk page where several users recommended deletion instead due to hoax/verifiability concerns, so your input at the AfD would be welcome. Zeibgeist (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a WP:HOAX jolielover♥talk 18:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Lekkha Moun (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did some of my own research and found I have to agree with the comments already posted. WP:HOAX certainly seems to apply. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very likely hoax. The citations don't exist, and both the article and the references (along with the "quotes" from them) stink of AI. It seems like the article creator was hoping nobody would bother looking for these offline "sources". ApexParagon (talk) 00:15, 20 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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Hollwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nonnotable architect. --Altenmann >talk 01:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Architecture, Germany, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The sources in the article aren't sufficient for WP:GNG. An article on huffpost, links to social networks and a page claiming the subject's academic background. If something more substantial comes up, I'll change my vote. Svartner (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. But it sounds as if coverage brought up in the discussion could be considered sufficient. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Masters League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTINHERITED; Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 16:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Cricket. Vestrian24Bio 16:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I see no reason why this page shouldn't exist. It has notable sources to back it up and notable players are playing in it. With each new season, it will get more established. OCDD (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Vestrian24Bio 11:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should remain, as it holds information about a league 120.61.138.120 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's trivially easy to find coverage directly about this tournament. I've added a few sources with this edit. There's more out there. OsFish (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by trivially - is it WP:TRIVIAL? Vestrian24Bio 11:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that it took so little difficulty to find good sources that I am curious why the person nominating the article for deletion didn’t try to improve the article instead.OsFish (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP:SIGCOV for this event, other than WP:ROUTINE. Vestrian24Bio 06:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE would apply to individual matches, not major media coverage of the genesis, planning and holding of an annual international tournament. Regarding WP:SIGCOV, the news sources I have added are independent of the tournament and well-established, and the articles’ singular topic is the International Master’s League. I can add more later, because there is more. OsFish (talk) 07:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

would apply to individual matches, not major media coverage of the genesis - says who? WP:ROUTINE is part of the WP:NEVENT and it applies to all types of events. Vestrian24Bio 11:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Says the policy you’re quoting. From WP:ROUTINE:

Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for a whole article. Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine. Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all. Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary events that do not stand out—are probably not notable. This is especially true of the brief, often light and amusing (for example bear-in-a-tree or local-person-wins-award), stories that frequently appear in the back pages of newspapers or near the end of nightly news broadcasts

An international tournament that receives national and international coverage independent of the organisers does not fit any of those things. OsFish (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources - there's no international coverage, most sources are from Indian media only. Vestrian24Bio 06:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tournament is over now and its clear that it does not have international coverage or recognition; fails WP:SIGCOV. Vestrian24Bio 02:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. WP:SIGCOV is easily met. There is no requirement in SIGCOV for an event to set the media on fire across all continents. The final alone - barely finished as I type - gets a long write up in The Times of India, Business Standard, Mint, and the Telegraph (India) and Economic Times with previews before the game. That's five major national English newspapers in a very very big country covering just one match in detail. The idea the whole tournament does not meet notability requirements is simply not tenable.OsFish (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three of these are WP:NOTINHERITED. Vestrian24Bio 08:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how you think NOTINHERITED applies to coverage of the event in question? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, wrong link; see my comment below. Vestrian24Bio 03:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I wasn't making an argument from inheritance. I was responding to the claim that now the tournament was over, it was supposedly "clear" there had been no coverage that could meet WP:SIGCOV. Plainly there has been (and there are RS match reports for the games before the final too). The sources cited are major English language news sources. To suggest that this is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED is in itself to argue that reliable sources covering the run-up to and final of a tournament are not actually about the tournament - but that the final is notable, and there should be an article about the final, a conclusion I suspect you would not like. Look at the examples of bad arguments in WP:NOTINHERITED. They bear zero resemblance to the situation here. Also, I say "in itself", because as you are aware, there are also other reliable sources in the article detailing the genesis, planning and running of the tournament that have been added since the AfD process began. Collectively, these sources demonstrate notability.

A common outcome of AfD is that a poorly sourced article that looks ripe for deletion instead becomes a much better sourced one. The process shouldn't be seen as combat. In this case, we now have over a dozen reliable sources, each of which could probably be doubled up with others.

I don't have anything more to add to this discussion. Have you informed other substantial contributors to the article? It's a common courtesy. OsFish (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the five sources you've mentioned, three of them are Tendulkar's performances and social posts and not independently about the event; also, these are WP:ITSINTHENEWS; Nowadays there are news coverage for scores and match reports available for even every minor cricket tournaments, but WP:NOTNEWS.

there are also other reliable sources in the article detailing the genesis, planning and running of the tournament - WP:ROUTINE, "Planned coverage of scheduled events". Vestrian24Bio 02:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to commenting to say that your claim that "three of them are Tendulkar's performances" is flatly untrue. They are reports of the whole final. And again, you are clearly misrepresenting policy, which I have quoted in detail to you in the hope you would read what policy said before you quoted it. Overall, looking at your editing behaviour in this AfD, I would recommend that you read WP:TENDENTIOUS. OsFish (talk) 05:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Higgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't look very notable, and the few citations are mostly dead or commercial. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is a keep. It just needs updating. This article from The Chronicle Herald, this one from Maclean's, this one from CityNews, and this one from CTV News, and the Wall Street Journal cover her recent show DIY Mom on Bell Fibe TV. There are also reviews of her 2011 album from National Post and CBC New Brunswick. It seems before this, she fronted an "award winning" musical act, Ruby Jean, per this brief National Post article. Best, Bridget (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Bridget above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 20 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Elonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Declined prod with 2 sources added. Whilst third party sources are welcome neither this or this one line mention is SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 7 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) 00:34, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Have you read the entirety of the magazine source? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you please provide a link to it? LibStar (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You link it in the nomination? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per magazine coverage, which covers the subject in prose, is at least three pages long, and is not a database source to fulfill WP:SPORTCRIT. --Habst (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, we know that he competed at two Olympics, set some still-standing Equatoguinean records, later coached some of their Olympic athletes and we have a source that we know contains three pages of coverage of him. No Equatoguinean sources have been searched. None. This is where I think it is reasonable to invoke the NEXIST argument – we have sources we know cover him in some depth, and know that he was a highly accomplished athletic figure in Equatorial Guinea. It is very likely that the Equatoguinean newspapers of the day would have covered him significantly, whether for his Olympic career, his setting of national records, or for coaching some of their prominent Olympians later on in life. The issue is that none of those sources likely to cover him are currently accessible to us, except for the one that we do know covers him on three pages and has a decent chance of being SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 15 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.