Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 25

< March 24 March 26 >

Purge server cache

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. No valid reason for deletion given. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Murugummi

Murugummi (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)

Unreferenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart boy Ke (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:06, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Epps

Daniel Epps (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 appears to be a routine academic without any indication of meeting WP:PROF or WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. Significant coverage is not understood to include mere mentions in media. Receiving an honorable mention for a junior scholar's award does not constitute a major academic prize. This article seems to exist solely for self-promotional purposes. Notability requires more than merely holding a faculty position at a law school. Without independent recognition, awards, or influence beyond their institution, routine faculty members do not merit standalone articles per longstanding consensus. LogicSoup (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 23:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SiGMA Group

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

Looks like a run-of-the-mill gaming/gambling trade thing, Delete. IgelRM (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Definitely one of the companies of all time with minimal notability. This company is definitely not a sigma. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like the biggest or one of the top companies in its field. Though it currently has pretty pr-ish and superficial sources, but I found some good coverage in Malta news, and paywalled one on the German FAZ. Also, Maltabusinessweekly and Malta Today presented already in the article cover the subject in detail. Surprisingly, a random event I found during a search, organized by this company, attracted 25,000 visitors. The page should be reduced and cleanedup for neutrality.--Loewstisch (talk) 09:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have knowledge of Maltese journalism but please link even paywalled articles (It takes additional effort trying yo verify with the FAZ site search function. Also how many visitors were reported at an event does not give WP notability.IgelRM (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I initially considered deletion, but later realized that better sources exist, and the group page focuses more on its significant international events rather than just the company itself. In general, the sources discuss events extensively and their impact, for example, on Malta's economy, as the subject is a major event organizer in several countries, including Brazil. There is substantial coverage in Portuguese about Sigma and its local subsidiary and with descriptions of local events organized by it. I think the page should be re-focused to include these events and their impact. --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All available coverage is press releases or entirely based on company announcements, failing independence. Keep !voters should list specific sources so they can be evaluated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has substantial coverage in Malta national press: Talk.mt [1]

The SiGMA Group, a leading organization in the iGaming and emerging technologies sector, recently hosted the world's largest gaming festival in Malta. The event took place at the MFCC Ta' Qali and attracted approximately 25,000 delegates, 1,000 exhibitors, and 200 start-ups representing over 80 countries. The five-day event combined three major summits: SiGMA iGaming Summit, AIBC Summit, and Med-Tech World Summit, serving as a platform for business networking, knowledge sharing, and collaboration among industry leaders, experts, and innovators. The SiGMA Europe Malta Summit has demonstrated a measurable economic impact on Malta. The event is estimated to generate economic activity equivalent to sustaining 950 full-time jobs annually across various sectors. This includes not only the gaming industry but also hospitality, retail, and manufacturing businesses that provide services and products linked to the event and its participants.

The influence on Malta’s tourism sector was also notable, with visitors to the summit occupying over 60% of the country’s 4- and 5-star hotel beds during their stay — significantly higher than the usual 40% occupancy rate seen in November. The 2019 SiGMA Malta event contributed approximately €6 million in value added to the Maltese economy through both the event itself and tourist expenditure, representing 0.05% of the country’s total value added. Data from 2019 also indicates that firms in Malta operating within sectors tied to the SiGMA event directly contributed €194 million in value added to the economy, accounting for 7% of the total value added in those industries. SiGMA Group has expanded its global presence with a series of international events planned across five continents in 2023. The expansion includes the launch of SiGMA Africa in Kenya in January, marking the organization's first dedicated African event. Later in the year, SiGMA will participate in The Maleth Project III, supporting Malta’s third space bioscience research mission.

another from Times of Malta:

SiGMA Group’s biggest show to date closed its doors last week after three days packed with conferences, workshops, a high energy expo floor, and premier networking events. Official numbers put the number of attendees for the show at just over 15,000, making SiGMA’19 the group’s biggest ever event. Live gaming and eye-catching stand designs made this year’s expo a feast for the senses. Exhibitors brought a global flavour to the summit, showcasing cutting-edge games and software, offering innovative industry solutions, and bringing crucial networking opportunities to delegates looking to make next-level connections and deals. With energy high throughout the three-day-event, the expo floor was the place to be for delegates looking to mix business with pleasure. The annual SiGMA start-up pitch also brought investment opportunities and sound business advice to start-ups looking to gain a foothold in the industry as they battled it out for the top prize. A fiercely-fought battle saw Bethereum crowned its winner for its social betting solution built on blockchain technology. --多少 战场 龙 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both are specifically covering events by the company and feel rather fluffy. IgelRM (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep the topic appears to be not an affiliate marketing, but event-organizer, the largest ongoing events in its niche. There are reports with good coverage on the company itself on the influence of Sigma group on Malta economy and the Sigma Group’s impact on Malta’s economy, contributing roughly one percent to GDP growth, which is notable. I've added the wpbefore good sources on economy impact to the page into a separate section. Maybe it will help. Old-AgedKid (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these sources are independent. Source 1 is a press release, source 2 comes from this press release, source 3 is also a press release. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is this press release. The first source is heavily promotional, which is indicative of a press release. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Will editors arguing to Keep this article provide links or, at least, references to articles providing SIGCOV that are not press releases? This is typical in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sourcing meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Sources covering the events organised by the company go towards notability of the event, not of the organiser. Similarly "reports of good coverage" are not part of the criteria - we are not concerned with volume, but with the quality of the content. HighKing++ 22:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sigma received wide substantial coverage in the national independent press and even became a tool for opposition to criticize the government after one of Sigma key international events was relocated from Malta to Milan. Opposition leader Bernard Grech noted that while the Sigma conference had “put us on the map,” the government's poor planning—evidenced by week-long traffic chaos—has led to “lost opportunities for Malta.” So, it seems quite notable for a company to put a particular country on a map thanks to its activities. And another Independent Malta news citation: "What is the problem? SiGMA or government? SiGMA is an opportunity, but we have a government who does not anticipate, think, invest, or understand that it is there for the Maltese," Grech said. The Malta Independent:[2] [3] And here we see the prime minister giving a free advertisement for Sigma by inaugurating the official opening of the new office for Sigma i Malta. [4] And here the ministry of economy says he is lucky to see more profitable tourists, like those attracted by Sigma, coming to Malta.[5] Aside coverage on the company, the good coverage is also about past Sigma Malta by the same newspaper: [6] Xrimonciam (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WNEXIST. It's not the best argument and I'm not happy with the current sources, but I spent some time and it seems that not everything is online (accessible) but the independent media cover the company pretty well. For instance, https://timesofmalta.com/article/today-front-pages-march-28-2025.1107254 this the 28 March 2025 review of newspapers from Malta Times says that L-Orizzont, national daily newspaper, “leads with news about the expansion of Sigma Group”. I cannot find it online (it’s not web-accessible I guess), but I think that such coverage likely happens quite often as the last one appeared just several days ago and was spotted in the news review by Times of Malta. In November’s review of news there is a mention of the existence of the deep coverage on Sigma again (but not in online form) Citation: L-Orizzont dedicates most of its front page to a curtain-raiser for Sigma, a gaming sector expo that begins next week. I will come back if find something else Unicorbia (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: funny to see how Sigma is interconnected with the Malta as a country. The current Prime Minister openky discusses he problem of Sigma moving to Milan (already mentioned above) and trying to analyze and explain why this happens, underlining the impact Sigma has on the country prosperity and even politics. [7] [8]. The Malta government after Sigma moved to Milan, started building a new venue conference hall. And that is directly caused by Sigma: [9], [10]. Longer interview in partly text version is available here [11]. Also traffic jams created by Sigma conferences are a huge problem for the traffic patrols who even elaborated on a particular plan called "Sigma venue traffic plan" [12] [13]. TV news channels, shows etc might have much more. Unicorbia (talk) 13:52, 1 April 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! 23:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia McCullough case

Virginia McCullough case (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:NEVENT. All of the sources are primary news reports which follow the trial with little outside commentary. Does not pass notability for crime specifically. News reports can be secondary, but none of the ones on this trial are because they are just recapping the legal process. The event did not have any specific consequences, news was largely localized, and there isn’t any coverage after the trial ended. This is also a PSEUDO biography of the perpetrator instead of an actual event article, which this also has issues with (pseudo isn’t a guideline but it does raise the question of whether we should judge this by criminal notability guidelines instead which this also fails). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United Kingdom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG with extensive, international coverage in WP:RS (including just what's already cited in the article) and even a documentary retelling the story 5 years after the event ([14]). Does need a rename to focus on the murders, but that's not for WP:AFD. Longhornsg (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it actually international? All coverage I could find was local or localized to England. And most of the coverage I did find was trial updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s worth noting that under English law very little may be reported about a criminal case before the trial, because it is generally considered inappropriate to comment publicly on cases where criminal proceedings are ongoing. There are exceptions, such as the 2024 Southport attack, which attracted a lot of media attention because of the shocking nature of what happened, but this tends to unusual. Therefore, it’s not surprising that most of the details about what happened in this case were reported while the trial was ongoing, and more importantly, after the verdict. This is Paul (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but that doesn't prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This definitely passes WP:GNG, and I would argue also passes WP:NEVENT, since it received widespread coverage from national UK media outlets. Several hundred murders are committed in the UK each year, and the nature of this one makes it stand out from the rest. Not only is parricide a rare crime, the length of time the perpetrator was able to conceal the crime while continuing to live in her parents’ home, keep up the pretence they were still alive, claim welfare for them, etc, is also unusual. Many people go missing, and are generally reported to the authorities as missing fairly soon after they disappear, but in this instance the McCulloughs' absence appears not to have raised sufficient concern to raise the matter with the authorities for several years. A note on the article; it isn’t meant to be a biography of the perpetrator, and in fact most of it concerns the crime and the subsequent ramifications, so I would support a move to Murders of John and Lois McCullough. This is Paul (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't pass GNG because all sources are primary as simply recitations of legal proceedings. There is nothing to say on it beyond that it happened. While debating the move I was looking at the sources to judge if there was a common name and found them unsatisfactory to prove notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary mentioned above is certainly a secondary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This and this may also qualify as secondary sources, and demonstrate ongoing interest/coverage, although they don't appear in the article at present, and I'd hold off adding them for now. There's also this article] that I think discusses aspects of the case ahead of the documentary, but it's behind a paywall so I can't access it. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ongoing coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of the sourcing is news coverage, which does not meet WP:SUSTAINED or WP:GNG's requirement of secondary sources. !Votes citing news coverage as meeting GNG can be safely WP:DISCARDed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For WP:GNG we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and Sources should be secondary sources. The nom. and Thebiguglyalien are correct to call out immediate news reporting after the conviction as primary news reporting, and this is a fairly recent conviction (October of last year) which has given limited time to produce secondary sources, as reporting restrictions in the UK would prevent publishing prior to the conviction. But there is one very good example of a secondary source, given above. The documentary, Killed By Our Daughter: The McCullough Murders (2024), is a secondary source from a national broadcaster and widely disseminated. To clearly meet GNG we need multiple sources, and there are not yet any mentions in books that I can find. However, this is one of those occasions where it simply stands to reason that this one will be covered in books and other such sources in the future. The unusual nature of the crime, in that it was unnoticed so long, will certainly gain such notice, and it will also be recognised for other aspects, such as the debt spiral. This will find itself into additional sources. We shouldn't, however, keep articles just because we believe they will be notable one day. There should be no article if we do not have the sources to write the article (although this is too often ignored). Nevertheless, in this case we do have sufficient sources to write the article. The documentary is an excellent source, and it is likely that there is enough coverage in the extensive news reporting to pursue this. I note that even the Lucy Letby article only got its second secondary source at the end of last year, but no one would have deleted that article either. So this is a keep for me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just a reminder in case anybody misses this - there is still an active move discussion over at Talk:Virginia McCullough case, the result of which hinges on this discussion (at least, that's my interpretation, although the move discussion predates this, both are related as a delete closure here might result in either deletion, or at least deciding whether the present topic is actually notable) ASUKITE 15:58, 28 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hyman (TV personality)

Kelly Hyman (TV personality) (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)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 25 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts

The Black Parade/Living with Ghosts (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)

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

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

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I contributed to the Music Project discussion that was referenced at the beginning of this nomination, and I don't think a consensus was reached on how to handle the nascent craze for reissues of old albums that are poofed up to look like totally new items (or not). Instead we determined the need for some sort of new WP policy on the matter and I'm not sure if much happened after that. That is relevant here because this MCR reissue could be easily merged back to the original album under older definitions of "reissue", though it did make the charts under its own precise title in 2016, so maybe it doesn't fit that old definition. The ensuing discussion here is likely to include a lot of uncertainty. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The way that I thought the discussion ended was in a decent enough consensus that album reissues may not exactly need their own articles, new or old, even if notable. Either way, I believe I've made my case that the material here should likely just be merged into a paragraph or two in the main Black Parade article. Especially since it likely does not meet WP:GNG on its own due to the lack of critic reviews. If the discussion goes against that though, then I suppose it is what it is. λ NegativeMP1 18:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that the album passes WP:NALBUM. There isn't a requirement of how many national charts an album needs to appear on, but being in the top 15 in the UK, Australia, and Scotland national charts seems notable. Additionally, while there are only a handful of reviews of the album, there are also several articles where the album's promotion is the subject due to its obscure promotion as MCRX, and the mass reaction in the rock music scene and notable rock musicians due to the speculation of a band reunion. While I may be biased as the article's creator, I believe the content is significant and notable per multiple criteria in NALBUM. Sekyaw (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 21:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 25 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 into either a new list article, or a sub-section of All American Racers. In any case, most editors expressed the view that redirecting and merging was an alternative to outright deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle 987

Eagle 987 (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 racecar that ran in one race series. No secondary sourcing in the article, nor could I find any online from a basic search. Initially tagged this for single source and not meeting GNG, and an editor responded by adding two database entries that don't say a word about the car. The article calls it "entirely unsuccessful" though the sole source that says anything about the car (from its manufacturer, so both primary and non-independent) doesn't even support that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things, if you look at the sources i added, they are for the results, and 12th wasn't in the points for the series, so as I stated, it was unsuccessful, regardless of what Eagle had to say about the matter. Vantage-TWR (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hope the participants arguing for Deletion can be more clear in what they are arguing for because you are also stating that you are for a Redirection and/or Merge. There can only be one outcome so please don't give a closer different options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i personally think that a list should be made of the Eagle indy/champ car chassis, then this and the other Eagle cars will be redirected to said list Vantage-TWR (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this suggestion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
then just make some bare bones list, and the current pages can be dumped onto the new page Vantage-TWR (talk) 00:13, 27 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 Amos of Jerusalem (nothing to merge). If anyone really wants the histories swapped, leave me a note. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch_Amos_of_Jerusalem

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

This is a duplicate of Amos of Jerusalem. Even the text is largely the same. Wikibelgiaan (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's not clear to me what editors are advocating. Is it a straight Keep or a Merge? The closure of this AFD is separate from any future actions to Move or Rename this article which can be handled later by editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 25 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 00:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Popplewell

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 25 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. There is a detailed discussion of sourcing which raises serious concerns over the claims made concerning the subject. That it is a fictive creation is not substantially refuted in the discussion. Given the level of analysis below it seems unlikely leaving this open for another week will deliver any further insight. Goldsztajn (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Odin's Horns

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

It's a few pages further down in the book that Muller writes about the Triskele symbol as Odin's Mark. But you're correct: only the swastika symbol is cited to Snoldelevstenen. However, the Wikipedia article on Valknut references the "Triple Horn of Odin" on page 163 of Rudolf Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology. Any chance to check the accuracy of that? — CactusWriter (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simek has one sentence where he writes that they may or may not be variations of the same symbol. He doesn't call it Odin's horns or anything of the like. He also mentions the picture stone from Lillbjärs, which has both a valknut and three interlaced horns. I'll add that to the Snoldelev Stone's article. Ffranc (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking on that, Ffranc. Much appreciated. Here though is a more specific mention: Richard Cavendish writes that the "interlocked horns found on a rune stone in Snoldelev in Denmark was the sign of the god Odin" on page 1346 in volume 3 of Man, Myth & Magic An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Supernatural. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still just one sentence, not enough to base an article on. I skimmed the 1812 article in Antiqvariske Annaler that was the first to examine the Snoldelev Stone. There is a fun part on pp. 291-292 about the yet-to-be-named valknut as possibly "the old Nordic trinity" (in three variants, of which one has to do with Odin but not the mead of poetry), but it ends with essentially the same point as Simek: "On whether the three intertwined drinking horns on the Snoldelev Stone are in some way connected to this triangular sign, can probably nothing be said, until later discoveries place us in condition to make reasonable conjectures." ("Om ellers de tre sammenslyngede Drikkehorn paa Snoldelev-Stenen staae i nogen sammenhæng med dette triangulære Tegn, det kan nok ikke siges noget om, før senere Opdagelser sætte os istand til att gjøre rimelige Conjecturer.") Looks like nothing really has changed here within the academic research. The mystical and occult sides seem to have a preferred interpretation, but it doesn't have enough independent coverage for an article. Ffranc (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I mean, there are reliable sources referring to this symbol, albeit under different names, but it still passes WP:N. Maybe a rename would be more appropriate if there was a more common name found for it, but I don't feel deletion is the way to go here. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sophisticatedevening: Please point to these sources. I have searched but not been able to find any. Ffranc (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I noticed the [15] CactusWriter identified, this book here (pg. 206) and this one. This one might be referring to it but there's no illustration. There's a ton of jewelers that don't really count due to reliability but still have their own descriptions of it as well. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Only Signs and Symbols looks like it could be a reliable source, but it only has two sentences: "The stylized triple drinking horn is a symbol of Odin and in itself signifies strength and potency. It represents the three drafts of magical mead procured by Odin after a long quest." It's not the significant coverage needed for an article. I would also be hesitant about adding this to the Snoldelev Stone's article, since it says nothing about where this interpretation comes from (and doesn't even mentions the stone). Ffranc (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:56, 25 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! 23:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Bullen

Salim Bullen (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)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only two sources currently in the article are primary to the USL Premier Development League, while a WP:BEFORE came up with one sentence at [[16]] but nothing substantial. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 25 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! 23:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Fonseca

Fiona Fonseca (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 early- to mid-career liaison psychiatrist with some research fellowships, but doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC nor general notability criteria. Scopus impact of 2, based on 3 publications; prizes aren't sufficient to reach notability; fellowships are routine ones in the profession (no honorary fellowships). Journal editorships are insufficient. Klbrain (talk) 20:56, 25 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! 23:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Omega Epsilon

Delta Omega Epsilon (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)

One accessible source beyond primary sources, even if accessible only school websites Naraht (talk) 20:55, 25 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's First Olympic Medal in Tennis

Brazil's First Olympic Medal in Tennis (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)

Unnecessary article that doesn't expand on information already covered in other articles. ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 20:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beleave my recent changes to the page add new information that are not on other pages and also improve the article, becouse of that I am against to the deletion of the article Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:34, 25 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Trident Aviation DHC-5 crash

2025 Trident Aviation DHC-5 crash (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)

Deletion Could qualify for WP:RAPID but per what i left on one of the two IP accounts that have reverted my notability tag edits: "The accident being concerned in this article is a low fatality accident involving an african aircraft. as people such as Aviationwikiflight have stated previously, due to factors such as bad maintenance, aging aircraft and low amounts of news coverage low fatality aircraft accidents in Africa are generally not notable, see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:NOTNEWS and the above mentioned WP:NOTABILITY tag for events for future guidance to understanding the notability guidelines for events." Lolzer3k 20:25, 25 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 23:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heka (company)

Heka (company) (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)

Prodded by Guessitsavis, deprodded by now-blocked sock; bringing to AfD for clarity. I am skeptical of WP:NCORP. The sources are generally junky press-release type pieces. Note that Bru Times News appears to be a PR firms outlet, or that seemed to be the consensus when this sock ring was last active. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:21, 25 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. I will gladly provide a draftspace copy to anyone who wishes to work on this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LoveDrug

LoveDrug (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:NSONG. No notability and only some minor chart placements. I don't believe we need to create an article for every track off this album. Then we might as well create an article for "Happy Mistake" from Lady Gaga's Harlequin album, which at least received significant media coverage due to its live performance. Sricsi (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and OKFORK. WP:NSONG says, "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." The song has charted in multiple countries and the entry is already expanded beyond stub status. I'm voting the same way I have for the other Lady Gaga songs recently nominated for deletion: given the chart performance, news coverage, and amount of content here, I'd prefer to see this article expanded and improved, not deleted. This is a helpful encyclopedia entry and I'm bummed to see a deletion nomination immediately after being accepted at Articles for Creation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Chart placements are completely irrelevant. Fails NSONG, is not the subject of multiple in-depth pieces from reliable sources. NSONG specifies album reviews don’t matter for establishing notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Completely irrelevant" isn't correct. It's certainly a factor, just not generally enough on its own. Sergecross73 msg me 22:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this only has been covered within album reviews, which aren't enough to warrant a song page as WP:NSONG makes clear. Contrary to what Another Believer seems to suggest when giving an out-of-context quote, no depth from those can compensate for failing notability criteria. Charts (or lack thereof) become entirely moot when there's little to no coverage outside of album reviews or commentary from those who were involved with working on the track. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: to the album. There isn't coverage in Gnews, the song only came out this month, less than 3 weeks ago. TOOSOON at this point. I'd wait before creating an article on a newly released song, for the simple fact that it's not been in the public eye long enough to get critical reviews or gain much traction; charting at 88 and 103 aren't signed of notability. If it was in the top 10, that would be different. It maybe drop off the charts next week and we'll never hear about it again. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The track doesn't meet WP:NSONGS, there are no credible sources outside of album reviews. At least for now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drafity: I rather suggest drafting the article because the page was done with lot of research. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 15:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is one of those scenarios where I'd agree with draftifying. It's both a song that could plausibly become notable someday (not like its a 20 year old deep album cut or something) and contains content that could conceivably be used in an article some day (album reviews may not be able to establish notability, but its still fine to generally source content.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete + Drafify Unlike the sibling AfD noms for Zombieboy and Garden of Eden, I agree here that this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:NSONG is not yet met. I couldn't find any focused discussion of this song specifically in the reliable sources outside of album reviews, unlike those two comparators which each have significant and focused coverage in magazine articles, pop culture websites, etc. Agree though with Randompersonediting that it's possible the song could become independently notable later, so let's save the draft. FlipandFlopped ツ 17:14, 28 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 procedural close. An existing page was hijacked to write about an software engineer of the same name. As the hijack has been reverted, the discussion is no longer about the article Jared Mills. In the future, two deletion discussions may be opened: (1) If someone believes the rugby player to warrant deletion, someone may open a deletion discussion for him. (2) If a new article is posted about the software engineer, someone may open a deletion discussion for him. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Mills

Jared Mills (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)

references don't actually prove the claims they are attached to, and there's no evidence of notability (all searches come up empty except for deer hunting) and also mainly advertises his (vanity/self-published) book. (This is my first AFD, apologies if I messed something up) All the Best -- Chuck Talk 20:00, 25 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 Bushra Bibi. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Riaz Wattoo

Maryam Riaz Wattoo (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)

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

Hi, she is related to the first lady and the ex PM and was instrumental in establishing their relationship.
I would also justify her addition on the following grounds:
She was the head of Pakistan's largest political parties chapter in the UAE for almost a decade and represented the voices of almost 500k expats. She was instrumental in securing the majority of funding for PTI's early political activities.
She was the official representative for the UAE, a major Islamic county, to the OIC, the largest Muslim governing body in the world.
She's also a leading specialist in education policy and sits on the Times Higher Education board of advisors, which is the world's largest education policy institution.
She is also active in Pakistani politics and is commonly seen on most news channels and podcasts, and as such is well known by the Pakistani diaspora.
I would try to approach this from the lense of the Pakistani and Islamic community. She is of course unknown out of these domains but fairly well known within. Shahroze (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We use a global lens, her ethnicity has no bearing on notability here. We require extensive sourcing about the individual that show they are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was not referring to her ethnicity, rather that she is a notable figure in certain demographic. As per Wikipedia Policy ("overzealous deletion"), I believe deleting this page of a notable figure to a certain demographic will violate the policy. Shahroze (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per official Wikipedia policy - Overzealous deletion:
Section 2: **Articles you are not interested in** – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. Shahroze (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this person is as important as you suggest, then you shouldn't have a problem finding substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. No one else seems to be able to, so I recommend you do a search yourself as well. nf utvol (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, there are zero citations for her work as an academic, so not notable there. I can only find articles about her relationships and food she gave to people, nothing that helps notability. She could perhaps get a mention in the protests mentioned in the Guardian article now used for sourcing, but she doesn't seem to be notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searching in English, most articles I have found are her advocating for her sister. I have found only a few articles about her. Two are about her position with the Higher Education Commission [17], [18], one is about her personal life [19] and in one she raises questions about the PTI [20]. There may be more in Urdu or Arabic. If this article is not kept, a possible ATD might be to merge or redirect to her sister's article, as she seems to have had most coverage as her advocate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bushra Bibi. There's in depth coverage of her in Urdu: This from Jang is an analytical piece investigating accustions of corruption while working in the UAE which Jang terms baseless and fake news; This from 24Urdu offers details of her personal relationships. However, as noted, it's all in the context of her sister, but she is being publicly attacked for the relationship and there appear to be campaigns designed to discredit her as with her sister. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:31, 2 April 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 00:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shastra Nethralaya

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:34, 25 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Smoot

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:14, 25 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. Work from dedicated Wikipedians demonstrates sourcing to satisfy NACTOR (aka WP:HEY). Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Waterworth

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 19:12, 25 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Parkinson

Sheldon Parkinson (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)

Player appears to fail WP:GNG due to highly underwhelming senior career. Soccerway lists him as eight games for Phoenix in the USL Pro in 2013, and one cup game for the Brooklyn Italians the year afterwards. That's it. Though Phoenix as a club and definitely the USL as a league are notable as themselves, notability of biographies is not inherited and I do not see WP:GNG from my searches, only run of the mill mentions in team updates and match reports Unknown Temptation (talk) 18:44, 25 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) Cinder painter (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lloyd

Doug Lloyd (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)

From the references in the article, this player was drafted and traded. Played one game as a running back, but never touched the ball -- no attempts, no carries, no stats. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, since trivial coverage does not support notability. mikeblas (talk) 18:41, 25 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 23:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pain-free consciousness

Pain-free consciousness (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)

A neologism. The term "pain-free consciousness" does not appear to be widely used in medical, philosophical, or bioethical literature.

Searches in PubMed, Google Scholar, and other academic databases return very few (if any) results using this exact phrase in a defined or standardised way. The page itself lacks strong inline citations to high-quality secondary sources (e.g., textbooks, peer-reviewed reviews, position papers). Much of the content seems to reflect original synthesis or philosophical interpretation rather than summarising an established topic. The page reads more like an exploration or argument for a concept, rather than a description of a recognised term. Klbrain (talk) 18:37, 25 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 23:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aku Odinkemelu

Aku Odinkemelu (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)

Subject fails WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Source either fail WP:INDEPENDENT or are WP:DOGBITESMAN. Nothing to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:35, 25 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 14:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dorf (entrepreneur)

Michael Dorf (entrepreneur) (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 a procedural nomination completed incorrectly by Qinifer (talk · contribs), which reads:

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

Comment: I'm hesitant to !vote because the subject is friends with a high school friend of mind. I will note that the subject's son apparently used two different accounts to edit his father's article. I'm not sure if that's technically a violation of WP:SOCK or not. Bearian (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that demonstrate lasting encyclopedic value. Beyond failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG, there is a long-documented history of promotional editing, undisclosed paid contributions, and conflict-of-interest violations that severely undermine its credibility as a neutral, encyclopedic entry. The talk page documents multiple instances of single-purpose accounts editing this article exclusively to promote Michael Dorf and his business ventures, to the extent that the article contains primarily PR content copied verbatim from Dorf's personal and business websites. The aforementioned accounts include editors flagged for conflict of interest, such as Eli the Great, ZacharyDorf, (two accounts proven to be his children) and Citywinery155 (an employee account). These accounts engaged in promotional edits, and in the case of ZacharyDorf, continued making undisclosed COI edits despite repeated warnings. An editor in this AfD discussion has also noted that Dorf’s son used multiple accounts to edit the article, with those edits consisting of copying and pasting PR content from Dorf’s business websites. I agree with the editor who pointed this item out: this constitutes a clear violation of Wikipedia’s sockpuppetry policy (WP:SOCK). Furthermore, WP:AUTOBIO states that subjects of biographies, their families, and their close associates should not edit their own pages due to inherent COI.
This article also fails WP:NOTINHERITED, as Dorf’s limited coverage largely stems from his association with Knitting Factory and City Winery, rather than any independent accomplishments. Even if his businesses had received significant coverage, that would not automatically confer notability upon him, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Additionally, per WP:BLP and WP:V, biographies of living persons must be supported by high-quality independent sources, and this article has a long history of failing to meet that standard. Many prior revisions contained self-promotional content, with some passages directly copied from Dorf’s website, reinforcing the lack of neutral, independently verifiable information. The media coverage surrounding Dorf is largely event-driven, tied to business ventures and short-lived paid PR-driven press coverage, rather than sustained, in-depth coverage that establishes lasting notability. WP:RUNNING and WP:NOTNEWS clarify that notability requires more than scattered mentions or business promotions.
Given the pattern of documented paid promotional activity across multiple related articles, which include Knitting Factory and City Winery, both of which have ongoing deletion or merge discussions, this article appears to exist to promote an individual and his business interests rather than provide an objective, verifiable encyclopedic entry. Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG, it does not meet inclusion criteria. Furthermore, given the extensive history of promotional editing, undisclosed COI violations, and failure to demonstrate lasting notability in independent sources, this article and its related pages do not serve as neutral biographical entries, but rather as a promotional effort linked to Dorf’s business ventures. Wikipedia is not a business directory (WP:NOTADIRECTORY) nor a platform for self-promotion (WP:PROMO). Per WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:COI, deletion is the appropriate course of action. Qinifer (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it does not look notable or encyclopedic and does read like promo. Plus the COI issues do not help. Perhaps some of it can be put to Knitting Factory, which is linked to a record company. Ramos1990 (talk)
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 List of television stations in Puerto Rico#LPTV stations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WXWZ-LD

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:54, 25 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 List of television stations in Puerto Rico#LPTV stations. Goldsztajn (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WVDO-LD

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:54, 25 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 23:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

StarDoc 134

StarDoc 134 (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)

Unnotable operating system. No significant coverage found. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a clear Delete. "Andrew Baker aka "RamMan, Dotel and Dotelpenguin"? The rest of the article is a bit suspect with text like this. Haven't looked into all of it carefully, but e.g., see also: "The return to the nostalgic roots of WWIV was accomplished during the 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic lockdown." Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unable to find SIGCOV. The Fresno Bee reference seems to be non-existent; Newspapers.com contains comprehensive archives for this newspaper. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:16, 27 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 23:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talently

Talently (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, WP:NPRODUCT. No reliable source coverage, and I'm pretty sure the only purported independent coverage at all from TechRepublic is fake, as I could not find the reference. ~ A412 talk! 15:14, 25 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Konotop (disambiguation)

Battle of Konotop (disambiguation) (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)

Since the merge of Battle of Konotop (2022) to Northern front of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in June 2024, there is only one article with "Battle of Konotop" in the title. That article is appropriately titled Battle of Konotop and has a hatnote pointing to the Northern front article. This DAB page is thus completely useless. I tried blanking and redirecting it [26], but was reverted by User:Bkonrad [27], so I am now here to request that this page be redirected to Battle of Konotop or deleted. Toadspike [Talk] 15:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, self-explanatory lack of ambiguity. HappyWith (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; AFAIC, this could have been done with technical request; only reason I reverted was to avoid having a page with "(disambiguation)" in title redirecting to an article, as that pretty much renders the point of having such redirects useless. older ≠ wiser 18:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I didn't realize that I can BLAR and then nominate for speedy deletion under G14. That feels wrong somehow but it looks like the rules allow it. Toadspike [Talk] 19:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After discussing this with some other experienced users, it seems improper to BLAR and then nominate for speedy deletion. However, a PROD could've saved some trouble, or Bkonrad could've nominated for G14 when he came across the redirect. Toadspike [Talk] 12:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added {{one other}} which allows a chance for editors to determine whether there are other uses (and evaluate whether the initial changes leading the this were appropriate). older ≠ wiser 13:04, 27 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaitanya Singha Dev

Chaitanya Singha Dev (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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG, There is no significant coverage in the cited sources. Koshuri (グ) 14:23, 25 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) 13:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wero (payment)

Wero (payment) (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 recommend the deletion of the Wero (payment) Wikipedia page due to a lack of notability, as it does not have sufficient independent coverage in reputable sources to demonstrate its significance in the mobile payment industry. Mapsama (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the correct solution here is to add sufficient citations of independent coverage, not a deletion proposal [36][37][38][39] Jogerj (talk) 11:55, 1 April 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 Procedural keep‎. No rationale presented by the nominator, and on their others, I very strongly advise re-editing them all with a statement with their own words. (non-admin closure) Nathannah • 📮 16:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaparak (company)

Shaparak (company) (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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaparak_(company) Mapsama (talk) 13:38, 25 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 14:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Klinger

Ari Klinger (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 propose the deletion of the Ari Klinger Wikipedia page due to insufficient notability, as it relies heavily on limited sources that do not provide significant coverage Mapsama (talk) 13:33, 25 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 14:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beit Hall

Beit Hall (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)

Tagged for notability for 5 years. Suggest that there is little independent third party sources showing that this student accommodation is notable and WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:18, 25 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. There is consensus that BeanieFan11's sources have shown that the subject is still important and well-known, a good indicator that sources from his heyday likely exist. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wojciech Tyc

Wojciech Tyc (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 footballer. No sources found beyond profiles from databases. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel like almost no effort is being put into many of these noms. He played numerous first-tier matches in the 1970s in Poland/France and still today gets interviewed by many newspapers as a "legend" and a "famous" footballer of the 1970s. He's frequently consulted today for his opinions on Polish football, e.g. this ("Wojciech Tyc, a member of the legendary Odra Opole"), this ("Wojciech Tyc was a terror on the football pitch in Poland in the 1970s. He was a striker who helped change the image of the Opole team from a small team to one that the biggest names had to reckon with."), this, this ("Wojciech Tyc, a former long-time striker of Odra Opole and a representative of Poland ... [he] represented the Opole club in the years 1972-1981. He played in the senior Polish national team once, in 1977, in a friendly match with Sweden. He was also on a long list of players considered in the composition of the World Cup in 1978, and in subsequent years he also played in the Olympic team. After leaving Odra, he went to France, where he ended his career, playing successively for FC Valenciennes, Amiens SC and US Argentan. Many years after ending his career, he still closely follows the activities of the Polish national team") and this ("Wojciech Tyc is one of the legends of Odra Opole. For many seasons he was the club's best sniper, and in 1977 he even played in the Polish national team. For two months Tyc has been managing the new football centre on Północna Street. However, the councillors from the audit committee want to look into the form of his employment. The complaint in this matter is already in the city hall."). It is absolutely inconceivable that he would not have received in-depth coverage in Poland / France in the 1970s, when he was most prominent, given how highly he is still discussed today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is so famous, why are there no good sources about him in his article?? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A third of all of Wikipedia is in stub-condition. That the article is in poor quality in no way means that the subject is non-notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – This is a case where the player's notability is linked to regional and offline material, thus the sources presented by BeanieFan11 point out the basics for the article to be maintained. Svartner (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Analysis of BeanieFan11 sources will be helpful. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan and WP:COMMONSENSE. GiantSnowman 18:26, 26 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 14:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Walker (musician)

Donald Walker (musician) (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:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. As always, neither writers nor musicians are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about their work -- but four of the nine footnotes here are just his own work being cited as metaverification of its own existence, two are blogs, one is a mere directory entry, and the only two nominally reliable sources in the bunch (one book and one improperly cited newspaper article) both just briefly namecheck Donald Walker without being about him in any sense, which is not the kind of coverage we need to see.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 25 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 Mika'ela Fisher. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Männin

Männin (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)

Promo for non notable short film. Lacks independent coverage, no sign of any reviews. Being screened and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. Wanky promotional writing. One of multiple promo pieces largely created by the films production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider Mika'ela Fisher notable? If so, redirect to her page, maybe? -Mushy Yank. 09:39, 27 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 Mika'ela Fisher. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Die Tapferen Haende im Chaos der Zeit

Die Tapferen Haende im Chaos der Zeit (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)

Promo for non notable short film. Lacks independent coverage, no sign of any reviews. Being screened and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. Wanky promotional writing. One of multiple promo pieces largely created by the films production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The film never screened at any film festival that is so notable that it would be notable on that basis alone. It screened at Cannes, but not in any area that would establish notability. Cannes is exclusive, but not so exclusive (outside of Un Certain Regard) that appearing at it would equal notability. Film festival appearances are kind of a given and seen as a routine thing. They can make it more likely that coverage could exist, but it's never a guarantee.
The awards are largely unusable. The only one that might give partial notability is the Colorado festival, but I'll note that the coverage for this is either local Colorado papers or papers that are local to the award winners. Their wins aren't listed in places like Variety or similar - things that would help establish that the festival is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. The IndieFest Film Awards and Accolade Competition are run by the same people and are a vanity award mill. They hold their festivals virtually and about four times a year. Basically everyone gets an award, usually as an award of merit or recognition judging by the October 2024 festival. There are entry fees and while that's not always a sign of a vanity award, legit festivals usually don't hold sales/discounts. They also do not make winners purchase their own award statues or stickers to decorate posters or DVDs. Shoot, the company doesn't even automatically give winners a letter announcing their win - they have to request them. I know that any form of award makes it easier to promote themselves in the business, but this company has always been one of the laziest and most obvious vanity awards out there.
There are no sources on the article as far as reviews and such go. This just doesn't appear to be a notable short film. I'll take a look for sourcing before making an official call, but offhand it doesn't look good. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mika'ela Fisher. That did not take long. To be honest, I'm starting to seriously wonder if the director herself is even notable. I have been giving her the benefit of the doubt that she is, but the amount of promotional puffery and vanity awards makes me think that she might actually fail NDIRECTOR. Since there's a chance the studio might see this:
This is why you work with Wikipedia and try to follow editing, sourcing, and notability guidelines. Fisher might be notable (haven't checked for her in specific yet) but when you create vanity, WP:PUFFERY laden articles you make that person look less legitimate and non-notable by default. You are making your client look bad and you are poisoning the well for them on Wikipedia.
At bare minimum I can tell that the director's page needs to be razed and re-written to conform with Wikipedia's guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 25 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 14:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altacit global

Altacit global (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)

Spammy recreation of Altacit Global, which was nuked under G5 earlier; see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expertwikiguy (permalink to latest report). As for the company itself, much of its coverage is in the form of PR pieces, paid-for puff pieces like this, or some passing mentions with no further detail. Subject fails WP:NCORP and by a good margin. JavaHurricane 11:25, 25 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) 13:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Tang King Po College

Hong Kong Tang King Po College (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)

There is no Substance in the article , the given source doesn't justify notability. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. The sources found by Prince of Erebor.
    2. "Featuring Hongkong Tang King-po College". South China Morning Post. 1985-07-21. p. 47. ProQuest 1554180006.

      The article notes: "The Hongkong Tang King-po College, in Kennedy Road, Wanchai, is a boys' secondary grammar school run by the Salesian Society of St John Bosco. The school was established in 1965 and is dedicated to the memory of Mr Tang King-po, who gave his house for the Salesian congregation to run a school after his death. It is a Catholic school and aims to provide an academic curriculum integrated with religious activities. At present 1,000 form one to form seven students are enrolled in 27 classes. Such subjects as mathematics, science, languages, history, religion and art are taught. There is a courtyard in the school grounds. But the school no longer has access to a playing field, so outdoor activities are limited. However, that does not keep the boys from enjoying a good game of soccer."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Tang King Po College (traditional Chinese: 香港鄧鏡波書院; simplified Chinese: 香港邓镜波书院) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Gonna be honest, this isn't as clear-cut as I'd like. The sources linked by Prince of Erebor are not all independent sigcov – the last two links, from the children's part (Joyful Youth) of a catholic newspaper (Kung Kao Po), are probably the best. Cunard's SCMP article is fairly short, but I guess we can lower our bar for sigcov when the source was actually printed on paper – though it's mostly photos, the newspaper saw fit to dedicate an entire page to this school. What pushes it over the line for me is that the above list is not exhaustive. A search for "鄧鏡波書院" turns up more coverage, mostly routine school sports stuff, but also detailed features [49][50] and other interesting stories [51] (still not an exhaustive list). This isn't the most ironclad GNG claim and I know reasonable editors who would disagree, but in my opinion it's good enough. Toadspike [Talk] 11:35, 1 April 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. WP:SNOW. I’m ignoring all rules and closing this. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wahid Enitan Oshodi

Wahid Enitan Oshodi (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)

Not notable person according to wikipedia standarts 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 10:04, 25 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 per G7 by Cryptic. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Abo Zarad

Yousef Abo Zarad (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)

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability beyond his personal or professional activities Xrimonciam (talk) 09:34, 25 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. There is a clear consensus that the subject is notable, with an entry in the Dictionary of Irish Biography. Two users requested deletion on the Talk page, but they did not question the subject's notability and the article seems not to violate copyright. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:26, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard St George Mansergh-St George

Richard St George Mansergh-St George (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 17#Richard St George Mansergh-St George. Article was restored after being subject to a BLAR in 2019. CycloneYoris talk! 09:03, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:: I found the copyright page [here] that has apparently been transcribed word of word. However, from what I see online it appears the subject is sufficiently notable to warrant an article and there are quite a few other independent sources that could be used to rewrite this, perhaps using some of this source to create perfectly acceptable article. Perhaps draftify or start a sandbox that can be worked on by some interested editors. ww2censor (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original 4 line 2010 WP article contains the (mis-cast) words the name of 'St George' was assumed on inheriting his maternal uncle's property, Richard St George Mansergh-St George, the words following ‘Mansergh’ are inserted a little later here; the 2013 article by Matranga says the name of ‘St George’ following ‘Mansergh’ was assumed on inheriting his maternal uncle’s property, Richard St George Mansergh-St George. The Matranga article has a copyright date of 2012-13, but that does not push it back before the earliest WP version, nor do we know what the 2012 version of the Matraga article looks like. I don't see any sign in the WP article's history that it has been cut-and-pasted, instead it seems to have been developed a step at a time. It looks to me that either the Matranga article is the copyvio, or Matranga is one and the same as the main Wikipedia editor of our article.
    All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Note, I say mis-cast because the sentence implies that "Richard St George Mansergh-St George" is the property, not the uncle. I don't see this phraseology arising independently. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: The main author has, on the talk page of the article, requested deletion, as they want the material only to appear on their web site, that being cited above. They previously requested this in 2019.
    There is a note on the talk page that explains that this article is the origin of the external article, which has been there since 2013. Nominators for deletion are expected to check the talk page, this is part of the documented process. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 15:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:ANYBIO#3 with an entry in the Dictionary of Irish Biography. Curbon7 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In terms of the title/article, the subject demonstrably meets WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. In terms of the content, if there is a COPYVIO issue (and I personally do not follow or understand how that claim can be made by the editor making the claim), that issue can be addressed via WP:REVDEL. Rather than outright deletion of the title. Guliolopez (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dictionary of Irish Biography entry is sufficient for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what a remarkable life, well-attested, with significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability is established. The editor who has requested deletion on the article's Talk page (I'm not sure if this is Cowpoke49 or Nicholas F Matranga) should review WP:CRANDO: "If you contribute text directly to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC BY-SA and GFDL .... you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death)." The reminder that we agree to release our contribution under license appears in the Edit box every time we edit anything on WP. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:30, 29 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) Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shola Akinlade

Shola Akinlade (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)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 08:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Shola Akinlade meets WP:ANYBIO through his receipt of the Officer of the Order of the Niger (OON) in 2022, one of Nigeria’s highest national honors and broadly comparable to the UK’s OBE. That distinction alone establishes notability. He is also the co-founder and CEO of Paystack, acquired by Stripe in 2020 in a deal reported as one of the largest in Nigeria at the time. These achievements are covered in multiple reliable sources including Reuters, Irish Independent, CNN, and Forbes (all WP:RS), satisfying WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:ANYBIO has been awarded with one of Nigeria's highest honour.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 27 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 List of Tamil films of 2003#July—September. There is consensus that this film is not notable. However, there is disagreement over whether having several notable cast members means redirection to a list article is an appropriate WP:ATD.

My reading of policy is that since the list in question currently includes this film, a redirect is appropriate. The inclusion criteria of that list is a content issue that should be solved by normal editing and discussion; they are not up to AfD to decide. If a consensus develops elsewhere to remove this film from that list, then the redirect can taken to WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Galatta Ganapathy

Galatta Ganapathy (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:Notability (films). See that Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Generally used sources lists Filmibeat as unreliable. There are no reliable reviews [52], [53], and [54]. DareshMohan (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who added Filmibeat to the category/red "plainly unreliable" but the decision seems based on (at least refers to) 2 discussions. Let's have a look: two short threads; one is about BLP that only concludes "For now, I would suggest not using it in BLPs on the basis of "least harm" in 2015, while in the other (same year) THREE users find it.... RELIABLE!!! and NONE, NON-RELIABLE. So maybe it's not great journalism (certainly the article is not great) but the consensus about not using it for verification of uncontroversial facts is not clear (more recent opinions expressed (2022/2023) on the noticeboard about the site are based on its presence in red at ICTF...).So if the consensus exists, it should not be based on the 2 threads it quotes. -Mushy Yank. 23:46, 25 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 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Tamil films of 2003: standard WP:ATD for released films with notable cast; not opposed to Keep, as this is 2003 and print sources might exist and show this meets WP:NFIC in some way. Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 10:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_Tamil_films_of_2003#July—September or Delete. 2 sources on the page, one is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and the other just lists the song track from the movie. Nothing notable and no significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a bit uncomfortable redirecting non-notable films to a main list page. I feel like this runs the risk of turning list pages into entries that violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and turn them into a database collecting any and every film that could potentially fall under that criteria. This not only makes the page unwieldy, but it would make it difficult to really determine which films are notable. It also kind of encourages people to come on and create pages for their non-notable movies because they're getting "rewarded" with a mention of their film somewhere. Sometimes we do have cases where a film warrants mention somewhere, but doesn't pass NFILM, but those are pretty rare and are cases where something falls just shy of NFILM. Those are typically things like an early or extremely rare example of a film, or one where it's frequently mentioned in RS but never in enough depth to pass NFILM. It's extremely rare that this comes along. This film? Tamil language movies are released all the time, sometimes with notable people, sometimes not. The film existing doesn't necessarily mean that it is notable and needs mention on Wikipedia somewhere.
I'm going to bring this up at the film WikiProject. I get wanting to include everything, but this just feels too inclusionary for my tastes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just have a look at the cast, please. -Mushy Yank. 22:35, 25 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 . Goldsztajn (talk) 11:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Labov marketing communications and training

Labov marketing communications and training (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 indication of notability (NCORP), mainly unsourced page with promotional content. Cinder painter (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very little content is referenced, and of the three references, one is directly tied to the subject and other is a local chamber of commerce (whose main task is to promote local businesses). So there's one article that's independent and reliable, which maybe (or maybe not) establishes notability. I've tagged the article as needing more references, but I don't think the company meets notability criteria. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTPROMO - This looks to be an unfinished recruitment advertisement. Of the three sources, one is a book written by this company's founder. The key people are all red links. — Maile (talk) 20:23, 25 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 Broadridge Financial Solutions. Extensive source analysis and affirmation of the source analysis indicates very little actual reliable sourcing to justify a standalone page. Appeals to the subject's position as CEO on its own cannot be an indicator of notability. Goldsztajn (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gokey

Tim Gokey (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)

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The article lacks significant independent coverage from reliable sources that establish notability beyond his corporate role. Most references focus on his position at Broadridge Financial Solutions rather than demonstrating substantial independent recognition. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this CEO of an S&P 500 company cearly crosses the WP:GNG threshold. There is plenty of "independent coverage" to note, as you can see here, here, here, here, here, and here (to share just a few examples), ranging from his career to board memberships, time at Oxford University, support for women's rowing, and more. Just because news coverage often focuses on his leadership at Broadridge Financial Solutions doesn't make him any less notable; to the contrary, Broadridge is one of the largest companies in the world, making what Gokey does there even more important in the grand scheme of things. Chief Executive is a big deal, and they clearly profiled him for a reason, going into detail about non-Broadridge-related stuff like captaining New College Oxford’s crew team apparently. This article got into rowing and his Rhodes scholarship too, among others. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
none of the sources has independent reliable focused on the person deep coverage. only wp trades and passing mentions. 2A02:1210:682F:6200:F106:A38B:B5BD:B50 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject of this article seems to have support from various sources, receiving coverage from media that focuses on Gokey as an individual, rather than just on his company. A quick look at the reference list shows that he is extensively covered in secondary sources (also independent), including his years before Broadridge. I don't understand why this article is being considered for deletion Fenharrow (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's a "Keep" vote for me too, just for the record. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources is reliable with significant coverage; only Gokey said, Gokey commented (the best I found is: CEO Tim Gokey says Broadridge’s technology helps its clients simplify their operations, enabling financial services companies to make their products more innovative. “New mutual funds, ETFs, managed accounts, app-based trading, and zero-commission trading” are just some of the offerings that have emerged, Gokey says. Gokey notes that Broadridge is also using technology to increase investor engagement and provide access to information about their holdings, which he sees as an important part of empowering individual investors. The company has enabled something called “pass-through voting,” which enables asset managers to give retail shareholders a say in how they vote on proxies, rather than having the investment manager simply cast a vote on their clients’ behalf. He believes some investors will seek out this kind of capability. “Maybe there are certain topics that you care about, and if it comes up, notify me [because] ‘I want to vote on that,’” he says. “I think that will be a whole area of exploration over the next few years.” --2A02:1210:682F:6200:F106:A38B:B5BD:B50 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to be annoying, but that's not really true. Per HR Dive, in the reporter's own words, "CEO Tim Gokey has been passionate about the sport since he rowed at the University of Oxford while a Rhodes scholar..."
    This is all original reporting from Chief Executive:
    "Fresh out of Princeton where he was a co-captain of the university’s sailing team, Tim Gokey went to Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship to study politics, philosophy and economics, while captaining his New College Oxford Boat Club to its most successful season in 40 years. How did he and his teammates do it, and what is the leadership lesson to apply from this situation? The answers are one and the same. Gokey, who is now the CEO of Broadridge Financial Solutions, practiced the highest form of servant leadership by removing himself from the boat and putting in a better rower..."
    And this from Finance Magnates is all independent reporting, under the section "Tim Gokey’s extensive career":
    "57-year-old Gokey joined Broadridge in 2010. He is a veteran in the financial industry with more than three decades' worth of experience. Initially, Gokey joined the team to lead the firm’s growth initiatives. In 2012, he received a promotion to Chief Operating Officer and in August of 2017, he became President. During his time with the company, Gokey has been responsible for the expansion of Broadridge’s potential through investments. According to the statement released by the company, this has helped position the firm as a global leader in Fintech. Before Broadridge, Gokey worked at H&R Block from 2004 until 2009. Here he was the president of the firm’s retail tax business. Prior to this, Gokey worked at McKinsey and Company from 1986 until 2004..."
    More here too, among other examples. Like this one from Newsday: "Gokey joined Broadridge in 2010 as chief corporate development officer from tax preparer H&R Block, where he was president of the retail tax division..." Doctorstrange617 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, who is this random IP editor? Is that you, @Hka-34 Jyli? Just wondering: The only Wikipedia contribution to their "name" is contesting this WP:GOODFAITH page. Seems weird... Doctorstrange617 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet GNG. There are actually only 11 (not 23) citations in this article -- many are repeated verbatim (instead of being consolidated) and 3 of them are reprints of the same 2018 press release. I have gone through all of them below, and none of them are significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
    • Chief Executive [55] (used as a citation 4 times): This is an interview, not independent coverage.
    • Finance Magnates [56] (used as a citation 2 times) is a reprinted press release [57].
    • Newsday [58] (used as a citation 2 times) is a reprinted press release.
    • Barron's [59] (used as a citation 2 times) is not independent coverage; it is an interview.
    • CNBC [60] is an interview.
    • PR Newswire [61] is a literal press release direct from Broadridge.
    • Fintech Finance [62]: This is not independent news coverage. This is a promotional bio blurb copied from Broadridge [63] and their press release [64], and contains promotional blather like "Tim is focused on helping clients transform their businesses to get ahead of today’s challenges and capitalize on what’s next" copied straight from his LinkedIn profile [65].
    • Reuters [66] is a two-sentence press announcement direct from Broadridge, as it notes.
    • Fast Company [67] is not coverage of Gokey. It contains two quotations from Gokey.
    • Sportico [68] (used as a citation 2 times - see Yahoo Sports below): Has a passing mention of Gokey regarding rowing and a quote from him about rowing.
    • Financial Planning [69] has a tiny passing mention (less than half a sentence) about Gokey concerning rowing.
    • HR Dive [70] (used as a citation 2 times) - A one-sentence passing mention about rowing.
    • WSJ Markets [71] - Not coverage, and not independent; just the bio blurb furnished by Broadridge.
    • Newsday [72] - another reprinted press release [73].
    • Yahoo Sports [74] is a direct copy of the Sportico article already used as a citation [75] and mentioned above, as noted by Yahoo.
    • poandpo.com [76] regurgitated press release copied from PR Newswire [77].

A Google search returns only a similar assortment of interviews, Broadridge corporate announcements, quarterly financial reports, quotations, and passing mentions. None of those count towards Wikipedia notability. 83.79.87.133 (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that the citations can be consolidated and the page overall could even be trimmed. I would be happy to work on that, and we could work on it together in good faith!
But we can't just ignore all of the original, independent reporting that I shared above, like it doesn't exist. Just because a news story includes an interview doesn't mean that it can't also contain actual journalistic reporting, as is the case with Chief Executive, Fast Company, HR Dive, etc.
Also, is this the same editor as before? @Hka-34 Jyli? It's another IP address with little to no track record of contributions over the years. Just curious, per WP:SOSP. Doctorstrange617 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's CEO of an F1000 and S&P 500 company, so meets GNG. Gokey was also a partner at McKinsey & Co..

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 . Goldsztajn (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gridbeyond

Gridbeyond (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)

Despite the attempt to make it seem otherwise, there is no useful coverage of the article subject I could find, and citing 4 copies of every press release (or churnalism of the same) about a funding round or a new contract signed does not make for an encyclopedic article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; nothing right now to indicate notability, WP:SIGCOV is not met (regurgitated press releases don't count.) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:17, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NCORP isn't met. My own WP:BEFORE searches return the same coverage we see in the article. Which, per nom, are the same "reprinted press releases about funding rounds" churnalism (mostly from Apr/May 2024 and incl RTÉ, The Currency, etc) we might expect to see for just about any similar-stage startup/scaleup. While my own BEFORE searches also return further coverage (from Oct/Nov 2024 and incl RTÉ, Silicon Republic, Business Post, etc) it is also of the "republished press releases about funding" variety common for just about any similar stage company. It is not independent or in-depth coverage. (FYI: I considered recommending "draftify", but the SPA/PAID/COI/REFBOMB patterns, evident in the title's creation, are difficult to overlook....) Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 27 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 03:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch Yarn of Matter

Pitch Yarn of Matter (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 around for nearly 20 years yet has not indicated how the subject is notable per WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Google search for "Pitch Yarn of Matter" comes up with a lot of directories, social media, and sites that have copied from Wikipedia, but not significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 03:24, 25 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 03:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trina Firmalo-Fabic

Trina Firmalo-Fabic (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)

Mayor of a small town in an island province. Fails WP:NPOL. Sourcing only covers her COVID-19 pandemic feat and a profile from the Obama Foundation. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, very limited coverage. Chippla360 (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Our expectation of an elected official (that does not hold a federal or a state- or province- wide position, passing WP:NPOL) is significant coverage of the official's accomplishment and legacy while in office. Size of jurisdiction matter less than the amount of coverage and type of coverage. The goal is whether we can write a stand alone page that says more than "they exist," and really can demonstrate the legacy of the subject to the community and to their region. --Enos733 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or ask at WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 02:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Felipe de Habsburgo

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

Weak delete Did a source review -- none of them currently have a significant description of him. He gets mentioned in the margins as his father, etc. is discussed, mostly, and there are a bunch of non-independent sources about him at conferences. One article talks about his children, interestingly enough, but not really him.
Googling, I immediately find sources mentioning him -- e.g.
Overall they seem to all focus on events he attends & one or two interviews, but not really about him. There's also this book in Spanish whose relevance I'm unsure of.
However, I feel like a more thorough Spanish source search might turn up some things. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: On ProQuest, the most representative database for Spanish-language media in the Wikipedia Library, he receives a meager 13 hits, all of which are again trivial mentions about events he attended and his relation to the line. Moreover, the only scholarly coverage is a minor inclusion in a 2024 thesis. Although there are many mentions in reliable sources, they do not amount to WP:SIGCOV and thereby fail WP:GNG. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm going to acknowledge the fact the article itself is lacking in notability; but it still has value and potential. Leaving aside the fact he's a descendant of Karl I of Austria - he's been involved in press conferences regarding the history of his family, and has been directly mentioned in a government website (gov.mx) for his involvement with the Morelia Music Festival, which underscores his engagement in public and cultural affairs. Therefore, I vote to keep the article with the intent to enhance it further. JayzBox (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your intent, but to do so you'd need to find reliable sources that say more than the current ones do, and as of yet no one has been able to do that. I would support moving it to draftspace if you want to work on it but not now, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: he's certainly interesting : who else can say their paternal grandfather is venerated as a saint by both Ango-Catholics and Tridentists? I have a longstanding policy of not endorsing a "keep per WP:HEY" until someone does the work of adding the sources to the article nominated for deletion. Ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's about 11 other grandchildren of Charles I, so Carlos is not unique in this regard. Notability is not inherited. D1551D3N7 (talk) 11:31, 27 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! 02:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper Heights, Arizona

Juniper Heights, Arizona (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)

We missed this one in earlier passes through Arizona "communities"; it's a 1960s-era NN subdivision that once was isolated in the hills south of Prescott, but sprawl has since reached it. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 25 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. G11: Totally promotional. JBW (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT)

World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT) (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 page is a copy of Occupational therapy#Global occupational therapy. If you intend to break it out into its own article, then please remove the section from that article. (The text will need more wikilinks, and will also need adjustment to its tone to sound more encyclopedic.) Brian Kendig (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This isn't an argument for deletion, and you shouldn't use AFD as a way to underline a point to other editors. If you think this article is fine you can remove the section yourself; if you think it's not fine you can tag it with {{tone}}. Before nominating an article for AFD you are required to search for reliable sources in good faith. There aren't any right now, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
For example, what about this work, which appears independent and is a huge source. More sources are this book, this book, and this book. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:10, 25 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! 01:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waheed Zafar Qasmi

Waheed Zafar Qasmi (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:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. References are YouTube, Wordpress, and other unreliable sources. Those I can find that are reliable are mainly mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 01:24, 25 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 02:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Action Party (British Columbia)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 25 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 List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature. Liz Read! Talk! 01:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emerged Democracy Party of British Columbia

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 25 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 11:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Youth Coalition

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 25 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 List of political parties in British Columbia#Historical parties that never had seats in the legislature. Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - For reasons above and the fact that it cites no sources (which would fail being talked about in WP:NOTABILITY). DotesConks (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 25 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! 01:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Píšek

Petr Píšek (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 nobleman with a biography that hundreds of Czech medieval lower nobles had. The sources used are only trivial mentions. FromCzech (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I wrote this article as I believe the subject is a politically notable figure from an important family. The subject held royal appointments and was the ruler of several notable castles/villages. The sources I've found are brief, yes, but are clear that this subject was notable during a politically and militarily unstable time in the Kingdom of Bohemia. The subject is 600 years old, and I presume there are many sources that are not digitized or I have missed on my search. I also do not want to discount the modern depiction of the subject (even a characterization) in the recent video game referenced in the article. While not proof of notability on its own, I do believe it supports the above assertions. Mbdfar (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the content of the article, he was the equivalent of a local politician, and ruled only the villages of Perštejnec, Vysoká and co-ruled Suchdol. His family was only a wealthy bourgeois family, not a noble family. There is no article for him or his family on cswiki, which would be very unlikely if him or his family was important like you say. You need WP:SIGCOV to demonstrate his notability. With all due respect, it seems that the main motivation for the creation of the page is the appearance of the character in the video game based on him, not the merits of the real character. FromCzech (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He ruled "only" three towns/castles. Respectfully, the cswiki has 7% of the articles that the enwiki does and is not a qualifier of subject notability. I learned about this historical figure through his portrayal in recent media, correct. My motivation for creating this page was improving Wikipedia's coverage of notable subjects found in this time and place. Mbdfar (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I should not have written that last sentence. Cswiki is of course not qualifier of subject notability, I wrote this just for comparison. The existence of SIGCOV is decisive. FromCzech (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to share a comment by Bigvadrouille549, where a source was provided "from the historian Emmnuel Leminger on the Italian Court. You can see that Peter of Pisek was mintmaster between 1391-99 [78]". The referenced text seems to be on page 169.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is well sourced, it probably just needs a rewrite
Alexthegod5 (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Article was probably only created due to the Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 reference mentioned at the end. Cottagechez (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made 2 edits, both on AFDs. Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this article is fairly thorough and well cited. The purpose of the notability policy is to make sure decent articles can be written -- this one is fairly decent and talks about him. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the sources are brief doesn't mean they're completely trivial -- the current article describes him as reputed to be kind in church donations, built a church, defended a castle -- there is, I think, enough stuff there to prove that an article can be written and has. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:16, 25 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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_March_25