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. asilvering (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eigen (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. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and United States of America. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His main works are Psychotic Core and Psychoanalytic Mystic.

I disagree strongly with him not being notable. Eigen is a major figure, and the fact that, e.g., Routledge published an introduction to his work (which is rare for a living person) testifies to that fact: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003002871/michael-eigen-loray-daws

His works are widely cited, as a search on Google Scholar indicates, with many of his papers and books having several hundred citations (which is significant for an individual). So disagreed w/r/t notability of Eigen.

However, I think you are rightfully calling attention to --- if implicitly --- to another issue: The page on Eigen has an insufficient number of external sources. Purely based on a cursory reading of this page one will likely --- and thus correctly --- come to the conclusion that Eigen is an isolated figure. In actuality, he is an important member of the psychoanalytic community, and he teaches worldwide (as his Seoul seminars indicate).

The article does not reflect that, however, and I am grateful for you bringing this to my/psy-community's attention. Once I have more time, I will try and add some external sources and appraisals.

But I strongly object to a deletion, Eigen is important, and the literature reflects that clearly. Honigfrau (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are four books published by Routledge about his work listed in the Further Reading section of this article. Even without looking further, that certainly meets WP:GNG. The use of primary sources for citations is probably due to not understanding Wikipedia's requirements, not to a lack of secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not look encyclopedic. Also sources are pretty good - publisher-wise, but do not establish him as a significant author. Many authors have credentials, but that does not mean they should have their own article. Two of the few editors to this page seem to be single purpose editors for Michael Eigen [1] and [2]. I think there is COI issues here. I agree with Mathglot's assessment of the current sources in the article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am going to try adding sources to this article, though without access to the four books written about him, this may be difficult. I would like to point out that he certainly meets WP:NACADEMIC#1: Google Scholar shows that his 10 most-cited works (ie written by him) have 652, 484, 455, 356, 339, 243, 244, 165, 128 and 123 citations. His most cited book is The psychoanalytic mystic, followed by The psychotic core (as Honigfrau noted). Articles reviewing his work are to be found in academic journals, through Google Scholar, not through a general Google search. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have now added citations in the article to books about him and his work and reviews of his books (it seems there are actually 6 books about his work, not 4). I'm sure I could find more reviews, but I hope this is sufficient. @Mathglot:, please consider the references now in the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources found by RebeccaGreen are more than enough to establish notability. The existence of multiple full books about his work from reputable academic publishers, in addition to the book reviews that have been added to the article and the subject's heavy citation count, make an extremely strong case for both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. MCE89 (talk) 09:52, 6 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 merge‎ to Geriatrics. ✗plicit 14:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GERRI (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 importance. If the page was about a real person, an individual animal, a commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event, it would probably fit CSD criterion A7. That's why I listed this at PROD at first, but it was controversial, so I'm listing this at WP:AFD. RaschenTechner (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: consider merge to Geriatrics under Cognition section if the topic is not strong enough to warrant its own page.Villkomoses (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Villkomoses. Does not merit its own page. Article has been here since 2012. It should have more substance by now. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Villkomoses.Lacks indepth coverage for stand alone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:12, 6 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 redirect‎ to Math and Physics Club. ✗plicit 14:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Ending Romance (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)

Appears to be an insignificant EP release. KaisaL (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KaisaL (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. As written, this is just a catalogue entry. Redirect to the performer or their list of works for now. --_{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 06:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above comment. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – The article, as written, lacks significant coverage or reliable sources to establish notability. Given that it is a part of the band’s work, redirecting to their main page (or a discography section) makes sense for now. If future sources emerge, it can always be expanded. PriyasVP (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Math and Physics Club. EPs are not always notable, even when the band is notable. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 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 merge‎ to Piet Hut. ✗plicit 14:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NEMO (Stellar Dynamics Toolbox) (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 stellar dynamics toolkit. No coverage beyond a couple papers and a brief mention in a 1997 book. Note: the article was also started by one of the toolkit's co-creators. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Computing. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Piet Hut: This software is used or mentioned in hundreds of independent publications, although none of them appear to discuss the software in detail. It should be discussed in some article even though it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. I would seriously consider revising the guidelines to allow articles like this to be kept, similar to how WP:NMEDIA and WP:NPERIODICAL have a criterion for publications that are widely cited by other reliable sources, but that is a discussion for a different time. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, by "merge" I mean adding a single sentence to Piet Hut. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge – Per Helpful Raccoon. The relevant content can be migrated to a new section. Svartner (talk) 01:15, 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 keep‎. Black Kite (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geo storm (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)

Unclear that anything at this dabpage is actually ambiguous. Geo Storm is not known as Geostorm, and vice-versa. Users seeking GunForce II and Geomagnetic storm are not likely to use the search term "geo storm". This can all be handled with hatnotes. Delete. 162 etc. (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This disambiguation page is useful and avoids lengthy hatnotes. I completely agree that "Geo Storm" is not known as "Geostorm", and vice-versa, but "Geo storm" could be either. It is not clear what any redirect target would be. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it useful? I'll point out once again that nothing here is actually ambiguous. If the dabpage is deleted, the search query "geo storm" would simply end up at Geo Storm, and that seems fine. 162 etc. (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: agree with 162 above. It would be confusing for the reader to e.g. land on a Geo Storm an automobile - when they meant maybe the geomagnetic storm. Asteramellus (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asteramellus, since you agreed with the nominator for "delete" instead of "keep", was your vote supposed to be delete? Unless, I am missing something. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ramos1990 Sorry I meant Shhhnotsoloud comment - didn't realize 162 had replied to them. Vote is Keep. Asteramellus (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Disambiguation page is helpful. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:21, 6 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 14:19, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andranik Avetisyan (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 person. AgerJoy 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Seems adequately sourced- won some awards highlighting a degree of WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTFB. I can't verify that the Cannes International Exhibition of Modern Art exists, or grants awards, or any "New Talent and Creative Thought prize". There's an event called the International Fine Art Cannes Biennale, which does not appear to be notable. Nor does Cobweb art appear to be notable. As far as significant coverage goes, the article is sourced to local Armenian media (newspapers and TV) and YouTube. There's literally no sources from Cannes, or any other places. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not Instagram. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:ARTIST standards like "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I am not able to find any additional information on the "Cannes International Exhibition of Modern Art," and the name doesn't suggest an award bestowed by a particularly knowledgeable body, as Modern Art is art "produced during the period extending roughly from the 1860s to the 1970s" and this person was born in 1968! Asparagusstar (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this "cobweb artist" does not meet notability criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Fails WP:NARTIST. The exhibitions are at "pay-to-play" venues, not at notable art museums or national galleries. The Cannes "show" is sponsored by a local hotel and seems to be a pay-to-play to exhibit at the hotel. No works in permanent collections, no notable awards, nor serious art historical coverage in art history books or notable art magazines. The coverage that does exist seem to be either PR based on the same press release, or human interest pieces because the artist curiously uses spiders and spider webs in his work. The lack of actual reviews in the broader art world are absent. The article seems to be an extension of the PR promo or self-promotion for his work. Netherzone (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I like to !vote keep on these even when they marginally pass notability testing. However here the sources indicate that only passing mentions really are available. Passing mentions, unfortunately, do not suffice to ensure notability. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:25, 5 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 redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by MTV#Former programming. ✗plicit 14:04, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Street Party (TV series) (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)

Article has been sitting around since 2006 with no substantive WP:RS. Article should be deleted complete or merged with MTV.Variety312 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Music. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV#Former programming – Article without sources since 2009, dealing with an attraction from the channel's early days. It is unlikely that sources will appear. Svartner (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Svarter. Not enough to keep as it as its own article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:27, 6 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 redirect‎ to Big Brother (franchise)#Versions. asilvering (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Hungarian TV series) (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)

Article has been stagnant for more than a decade with no citations. Content is already available in Big Brother (franchise) article and should be merged there or deleted entirely. Variety312 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hungary. Variety312 (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (changed from delete) no sources in article and article here since 2007. May be better for some European wiki than the English wiki. Better to redirect to Big Brother (franchise)#Versions per editor below. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Big Brother (franchise)#Versions, where it is mentioned. ✗plicit 14:06, 6 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 23:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ISQ.networks Press Agency (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:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Companies, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. – References are passing mentions, unreliable. A couple are from Yellow Pages and a couple are dead. Not enough news coverage.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notbale and poor sourcing. Reads like a promotion. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:05, 6 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 redirect‎ to Big Brother (franchise). asilvering (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Panamá (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 substantive wp:RS were found during WP:Before. Content already exists on larger article about Big Brother (franchise). Variety312 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Panama. Variety312 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Variety312 to Big Brother (franchise). Ramos1990 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Big Brother (franchise). 190.219.103.171 (talk) 14:35, 6 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 merge‎ to The X Factor. ✗plicit 14:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor (Bulgarian TV series) (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)

Content already exists in the main The X Factor article. Some of the analysis and detail here would appear to constitute WP:OR. Variety312 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Bulgaria. Variety312 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with The X Factor: This is overloaded with detail. Merge any relevant items. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with The X Factor per Fiddle. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:49, 6 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. Valid arguments on both sides, but I see consensus that this person does not meet our notability guidelines. Owen× ☎ 12:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keneth Hall (surgeon) (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 surgeon, offering the usual range of surgical appropaches, and with the usual side-hussles. Scopus shows an H-index of 5, entirely consisting of mid-author publication, suggesting that he is not a lead contributor in any research. Prizes are sufficiently noteworthy; listing in Marquis Who's Who Biographical Registry also doesn't seem sufficient. Klbrain (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep based on WP:SIGCOV. Surgery doesn't always get the respect that other specialties get in medicine. He moved from being one of many surgeons at NYU to being chair of an Upstate New York hospital department. Bearian (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The first real source isn't even formatted properly, no real secondary sources in the first or second block and the two awards and honours are not awards. I don't see much else. Not seeing any research or writing monographs or any named chairs. Not much to go on at all. I don't good career progression is particularly notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Before creating this page, I did a proper Google search on the topic and discovered the Dr meets the notability requirements.

Contrary to what the nominator hinted as his reason, Dr. Hall had led multiple medical research and has contributed to many of such research and academic peer-reviewed publications which are published on medical journals and other media platforms.^[1] For want of WP:NPOV, I didn't include them at the initial creation of the page. I made sure the page remains neutral as required. Now, I've included a section for his "Medical research and academic contributions" with the link given.

Also, Dr Hall hall had been appointed to serve in various top capacities in his fields such as

• Chair of the PHO Subcommittee on Obesity
• Director of Bariatric Quality Improvement
• Director of Surgical Simulations
• Medical Director of Bariatrics and Minimally Invasive Surgery at Rome Health
• Medical Director of Weight Loss Center and Wound Care Center at Rome Health in Rome, New York

He has also won multiple awards. For want of WP:NPOV, I only included those two. Also most of the sources used pass WP:RS, such as THIS, THIS, THIS, and others.

Judging from the above, I strongly believe that WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO Pax Zah Iyeuna (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The research papers added to not meet criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. They have few (if any) citations and most don't seem to be in notable medical journals. Providing a google scholar link showing number of hits does not meet criteria for notability as it's picking up contributions from any person named Keneth Hall or Ken Hall or even just the last name Hall. I do not think inclusion in Marquis Who's Who Biographical Registry meets criteria for notability, as nomination criteria and fact checking of the list are opaque. While there are reliable sources, not many indicate notability. Coverage from the Rome Sentinel and MVHealthNews is local, and I'm not giving articles there the same weight as a national paper. Some of these sources seem to be brief bios or non-notable coverage of medical seminars for the community. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. From a quick search in Googlenews, Dr. Keneth Hall has made significant contributions to the field of surgery, notably serving as the "Medical Director of Bariatrics and Minimally Invasive Surgery" at Rome Health, where he introduced advanced minimally invasive and robotic surgical techniques. He has also held key positions such as "Chair of the PHO Subcommittee on Obesity and Director of Bariatric Quality Improvement" at NYU Long Island Hospital. Furthermore, Dr. Hall has contributed to multiple peer-reviewed medical publications. These accomplishments demonstrate the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies as given in WP:SIGCOV.Maltuguom (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete many doctors make significant contributions and have have awards, credentials, etc. But not enough coverage or good sources to make this entry encyclopedic. Since article was made in March 2025, this may be improved in draftspace. But it is not ready for mainspace. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, subject does not pass any of the 8 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, and I do not think WP:ANYBIO is passed either from what I see. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 09:52, 7 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 14:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo da Via Anfossi (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 page doesn't appear to be encyclopedic. JacktheBrown (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In what respect? Give people something to hang their hats on. Uncle G (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are some sources online: Discogs, AllMusic, Viberate, Google News, etc. Instagram is not a reliable source, but he has 47,400 followers. I'm not sure that it's significant coverage, but I'm equally unsure that a decent search was done before nominating it. Bearian (talk) 09:36, 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!} 22:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources are not good for BLP and WP ARTIST. Unicorbia (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The best sources I could find in a quick google search were listings of his music, capsule reviews, or mere mentions. Nothing substantial enough to support a BLP. Maybe if someone familiar with Italian hip-hop were to take a deep dive they could find something, but that needs to be done before creating an article on a living person. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No independent coverage in RS. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 13:42, 6 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. ✗plicit 14:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hany Rashwan (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. None of the cited articles are directly about him. Gheus (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 16 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!} 22:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've dug up a Forbes staff article and an Ars Technica article about him with significant coverage. Both reliable per WP:RSP. Hmr (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subject looks notable and has enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean keep: Here is an additional article that talks about the others involved in 21Shares, its more of a trivial mention of Rashwan but it might be useful for this article anyways. Moritoriko (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Until someone does the work of adding the sources found to the article, in context, I can't say it's yet reached the Heymann standard. Please ping me when you have done so. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bearian: WP:HEY Hmr (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see above. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Af1 (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)

Found while doing NPP. Fails WP:NSONG. I was unable to find any more reliable sources to establish notability. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough media coverage for this. Actual singer Lilbubblegum has no wikipedia page. How can a song be more notable than the artist who made it? Plus sourcing is not the best. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:23, 6 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Dust (magazine) (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 article is an advertisement for a non-existent magazine from the UK. Aquabluetesla (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not meet criteria of WP:GNG --Xrimonciam (talk) 08:33, 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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (Cricket) awards (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:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is WPL version of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Premier_League_awards. I have made this article after 3 years of the event which is enough time for the notability of the tournament Rtyggu (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WPL on its own doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for this. Vestrian24Bio 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, IPL awards took 10 years to reach notability. Vestrian24Bio 08:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Does not need to be deleted. OCDD (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the league article. Once there's something of depth to add here it can be re-created, but at present there's very, very little that's worthwhile Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:48, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is a list, so it does not have to meet the GNG or receive significant coverage. It only has to be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" per NLIST. The few sources in the article are enough to confirm that NLIST is met. Toadspike [Talk] 16:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of the sources on the page does that. Vestrian24Bio 04:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Toadspike. WP:BEFORE was not done. Veldsenk (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Veldsenk: Based on what are you assuming that? Vestrian24Bio 14:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Recently created article. Needs more work in sourcing. May be better in draft space for the time being. Not ready for mainspace. 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 speedy keep‎. Seems to be mistake; nomination withdrawn. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international prime ministerial trips made by Jean Chrétien (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 topic doesn’t seem notable enough in its own right to have its own article.

Possibly could be merged into Jean Chrétien (Though we’ll need to find sources for this info in order to merge). ApexParagon (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. ApexParagon (talk) 19:12, 30 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) 19:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairyland (band) (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)

Only reliable coverage present is one article from Blabbermouth. Could not find additional coverage for the band or any of their albums. No appearance of NBAND passage beyond albums on Napalm Records; certainly shouldn't approve of that without GNG. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Further to the Blabbermouth coverage, there are at least 3 more WP:RSMUSIC publications covering the subject: staff bio & staff review on Allmusic: [12], [13], a by-lined album review on metal.de: [14], and several articles and reviews available on Rock Hard: [15]. ResonantDis_tortion 22:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Geschichte (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 3 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 no consensus‎. Several of the Keeps were discarded for not presenting any valid P&G-based argument for retention. The most common of those were, "But Tiffany has an article!", or "He's now old enough". Conversely, I found some of the Redirect !votes weak, as their main argument was, "That's what we decided last time, and nothing has changed." That implicitly assumes that (a) the outcome of the previous AfD was the best possible one; and that (b) consensus has not shifted since then. The assertion itself seems doubtful, since the thorough source analysis conducted by Adavidb presents multiple sources added since the June 2024 AfD. I don't see much engagement with Adavidb's source assessment by the Redirects, which is what I would have expected from anyone weighing the case on merits. I understand that there's a certain level of debate-fatigue on the subject, but the last AfD was ten months ago, which is eternity in terms of news cycle coverage--encyclopedic or not--about these topics. All of this leaves us with no consensus either way. Please do not renominate unless there is a clear shift in either the subject's notability, guidelines, or community standards. Owen× ☎ 14:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: please note that the closing statement above is the exact text I had in my offline text editor at 13:26 7 April 2025 UTC, when I refreshed the page to find that Sjakkalle accidentally missed my {{closing}} tag and closed this AfD. While I did read his closing statement, I made no changes to mine, and posted it as-is after his close was rolled back. Owen× ☎ 14:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am not convinced the arguments raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (3rd nomination) have been properly resolved. The sources are still primarily about his relation to the rest of the Trump family, and there is exactly one new bit of information from since the june 2024 AfD - that his father's cryptocurrency project named him a "financial visionary", not exactly an independent conformation of notability. I suggest that have a restored redirect and be salted for the time being. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the AfC reviewer who promoted the article, I note that there has been substantial coverage of the subject since the previous AfD, and this is not abating. A substantial number of citations in the article postdate that discussion, and if this were any other subject, GNG would be abundantly satisfied without question by the degree of coverage, irrespective of achievements documented. BD2412 T 17:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons stated above. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 18:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as sufficient coverage from new sources have been given since the previous Afd and are present in the article, now passes WP:GNG. Sources have shifted away from his familial ties and more towards himself, and I see no reason why this trend will not continue in the future. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 18:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'll copy what I said in my comment on the draft.

The main question in my mind is whether there's been a change since the last AfD that addresses the main issues brought up by redirect !voters.

Looking at the AfD, the two issues were "independent notability" and "low-profile individuals". In other words, 1) is Barron Trump only notable for being Donald Trump's son 2) and is Barron Trump avoiding publicity?

Since the AfD, I think both have been addressed by Barron's cryptocurrencies projects and his affiliation with influencers.

Specifically, 1) appeared to be interpreted at that AfD as requiring the coverage to be meaningful even if Barron wasn't Donald's son. For example, multiple redirect !voters discussed Barron's status as an RNC political delegate, which wouldn't have received coverage if Barron was a random person.

However, after the AfD, WP:SIGCOV has been created/added. A cited New York Times article says Barron Trump is now treated as an adviser by his father and as something of a next-generation MAGA mascot by his father’s supporters[24], we see discussions of his role in Trump's decision to go on the Joe Rogan experience as well as being credited as the mastermind behind his father’s push into the “manosphere” media and finally credited for Andrew Tate's release from a Romanian prison.[25] In other words, Barron is now engaging in political activity within the Trump administration. Would he have that role if he wasn't Trump's son? Maybe not, but the main criticism is that (quoting Mangoe) the material is stuff which for the most part could be written about any recent high school grad. For instance, Donald saying that he didn't think Barron had yet had a girlfriend is the type of coverage that doesn't satisfy 1).

Likewise, 2) appears to be addressed as well. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual gives examples of high-profile activities as willingly participating in the political sphere or providing commercial endorsements. It's already shown that Barron has started being politically active by engaging with influencers. But Barron is also involved with and endorsing World Liberty Financial. He is currently listed as a "Web3 Ambassador" [26] and formerly as a "DeFi visionary".[27] All of this coverage occurred after the AfD.

To summarize, Barron Trump is a marginal adviser in the Trump administration. He pushed for Andrew Tate to be freed from a Romanian prison and the Joe Rogan podcast, in addition to his role in Trump's crypto adventures. That removes him from the WP:LPI policy and gives him non-inherited notability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect: as suggested in the last AfD. Nothing's changed in the last 9 months that makes this person more notable. You can only find mentions of him in relation to other Trump things. "Prez Trump did xyz and Barron was there" are about the extent of it. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG."

  GNG (not a complete list):

  • Barron Trump will be first son in White House since JFK Jr. (CNN)
  • Barron Trump takes classmates to meet the US President on White House tour (The Independent)
  • Two Trump Children Escape the Traditional Spectacle as School Begins (NYT)
  • Barron Trump Skipped His Father Donald Trump's Final Speech as President (People)
  • Barron Trump to attend exclusive school near Mar-a-Lago (AP)
  • Why Barron Trump could be key to Donald winning back the White House (Daily Telegraph)

  .. It goes on and on like that many more. You get the idea, he is famous, the press covers his every move. As INHERIT says, it doesn't matter if is solely known for his relationship with his father, what matters is that someone is famous (notable per GNG). -- GreenC 16:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons provided by @BD2412. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Chess. Normally, I'd find myself in the oppose camp of children/young adults of political/celebrity figures. However, notwithstanding that Barron Trump seems to value his privacy (sort of), he has taken an active role in his father's presidential campaign, business empire, and government. The article currently cites substantive profiles of him, not just "Prez Trump did XYZ and Barron was there." voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i think this article should stay. The rest of trump family has an article, even if they're not even involved with politics. why shouldn't barron have it GloryToCalifornia (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are better rationales than that in the discussion already. BD2412 T 23:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, per Oaktree b. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I don't understand why different rules seem to apply to Barron than do Tiffany or children of other presidents. There is clearly plenty of source material about him and he's an adult now. _pbp 00:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect to Family of Donald Trump#Barron Trump per Oaktree b. The reasons given for redirection in the last AFD still hold. While there may have been additional reporting since the previous AFD, the nature of the reporting is the same. He is only reported about because of Donald Trump things. If Donald Trump didn't have the profile they do, we wouldn't know about Barron, the article wouldn't exist and we wouldnt' be having this repetitive discussion. Notability is not inherited. TarnishedPath^talk 03:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Part 1, pinging @12xii, @28bytes, @Abductive, @Abzeronow, @AirshipJungleman29, @AndyTheGrump, @Bagumba, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Berchanhimez, @Hinnk, @Mangoe, @Jordgette, @12xii, @Pawnkingthree, @DFlhb, @Levivich, @Soni, @Lamona, @HadesTTW, @JayBeeEll, @Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI, @Floquenbeam, @Carrite and @28bytes as editors involved in the last AFD discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 03:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Part 2, pinging @JoelleJay, @Frank Anchor, @JPxG, @Neo Purgatorio, @Zaereth, @Curbon7, @Esolo5002, @SarekOfVulcan, @Iadmc, @Riposte97, @Squeeps10, @Generalissima, @Pharaoh496, @William Allen Simpson, @GreenC, @Fram, @Bagumba, @Mdann52@Skyshifter, @Bruxton, @Queen of Hearts, @Janitoalevic, @Soni, @ElijahPepe, @Yngvadottir and @Novem Linguae as editors involved in the prevoius AFD. TarnishedPath^talk 04:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Part 3, pinging @Schazjmd, @Serial Number 54129, @David Fuchs, @Turini2, @Beeblebrox, @Launchballer, @Tamzin, @Nathannah and @Valereee as editors involved in the previous AFD. Appologies if I've missed anyone. TarnishedPath^talk 04:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fortuna imperatrix mundi fix ping (rename). charlotte ^👸♥ 04:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging @Dan arndt, @Robert McClenon and @Chess as editors involved at Talk:Barron Trump#Comments left by AfC reviewers. TarnishedPath^talk 04:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ping received. Will review in the near future (within 6 days while this AFD is open). Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote from the last discussion to Keep. While his article probably could use a trim for someone who doesn't have any social media or any political ambitions yet, there has been some notable news articles that suggest he has done things besides exist as one of Trump's kids. The rumors that he got his father to court influencers is notable as RS generally argue that such actions helped drive out the Gen Z turnout in the election. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The rumors that he got his father to court influencers is notable as RS generally argue that such actions helped drive out the Gen Z turnout in the election.

It still all goes back to his father. If his father wasn't who he was then the article wouldn't exist. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still all goes back to his father. If his father wasn't who he was then the article wouldn't exist. At what point does this logic cease to be applicable? Do I have to demonstrate a counterfactual scenario in which Donald Trump never ran for president and then prove that Barron Trump would've had the natural talents to become an influential adviser in the Jeb Bush administration?

Your argument would be more convincing if you could explain what Barron has to do in order to become notable in his own right, and why he has not achieved that. For example, having a significant advisory role in the Trump administration or campaign would make Barron notable in a similar way to Donald Trump Jr. Why does his masterminding of Andrew Tate's release or the Joe Rogan interview not meet that threshold? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would he have to do? Be independently notable. TarnishedPath^talk 07:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wikt:conclusory argument because it doesn't explain why independent notability has not been established. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was a keep last time around charlotte ^👸♥ 04:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• not much I can do if you all want to keep this, but the fact that we’re pretending there’s such an “office” as “first son of the United States” tells me all I need to know about how desperately some people want this to be an article. Could someone not on a phone get rid of that idiocy at least? -Floquenbeam (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam, done. Thanks for pointing that rediculousness out. TarnishedPath^talk 05:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Family of Donald Trump, for the same reason as last time. Every source mentions Barron in the context of his father. He has done nothing to be independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:INHERIT: "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." -- GreenC 16:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, obviously. From the lead, he is a student (not in any way a notable student) and a political advisor (according to his parents only, and even then hardly a,remarkable one). Why are we having this article? Fram (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion on keeping or deleting, but I do find odd complaints that mentions of him being influential to presidential actions include the name of the president he is influencing. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep based on the increased coverage of his political acrivities. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he's the POTUS' son. That makes him notable enough — Iadmc♫^talk  08:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Iadmc: Oh wow. This is the very rare occasion when someone falls afoul of that otherwise often incorrectly used essay WP:INHERIT which says, in effect, do not make arguments during AfD where you claim someone is notable based solely on who their parents are. It's very rare to see it in the wild. 99% of the time people who claim INHERIT don't understand the essay. They believe there mere fact someone has notable parents is enough to disqualify them, but that's not what the essay says. Rather it says don't make that argument ie. you also need to cite reliable sources that show notable ie. GNG. Do you believe this article passes WP:GNG? -- GreenC 16:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point redirect — Iadmc♫^talk  12:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect - I maintain my previous comment "Other than them no longer being a child, what makes this article notable as a standalone when this information better sits in the Family of DJT article? I certainly don't see it."Turini2 (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Imagine if Donald Trump did not exist - would any of Barron's activities or actions that are not connected to DJT meet notability? In my opinion, no. So therefore, a redirect is the best solution. Turini2 (talk) 10:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Turini2: In that case we would be discussing a college student who reportedly helped a presidential candidate tap into the youth vote to win election, and had the ear of that president and influenced their policy decisions, and was the subject of a 2,000 word Vanity Fair profile. BD2412 T 15:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Trump's mother later said that he played in an important role in garnering young voters for Donald" - come on, that's hardly a neutral source of that information! Turini2 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect, again. His notability hasn't changed; it's still all just stuff that mentions him in passing. Adding more sources and filler to the article doesn't particularly make it more notable. Neo Purgatorio (pester!) 12:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mention in passing? Many articles are devoted to him. Just a sample:

  • Barron Trump will be first son in White House since JFK Jr. (CNN)
  • Barron Trump takes classmates to meet the US President on White House tour (The Independent)
  • Two Trump Children Escape the Traditional Spectacle as School Begins (NYT)
  • Barron Trump Skipped His Father Donald Trump's Final Speech as President (People)
  • Barron Trump to attend exclusive school near Mar-a-Lago (AP)
  • Why Barron Trump could be key to Donald winning back the White House (Daily Telegraph)

  -- GreenC 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. I see nothing notable in the standalone article that could not be easily contained in the Family article. Little has changed since the previous AfD. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is old enough to have his own article as a son of the President as the other ones. Janitoalevic (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously notable based on multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Per WP:INHERIT: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. -- GreenC 16:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• To basically repeat what I said last time, redirect per WP:BLP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and because of the quality of the material. I cannot, apparently, say this enough: Sourcing alone is not notability. And reading through the article, the material is stuff which for the most part could be written about any recent high school or college grad. If he weren't the former president's son, nobody would know. He has no more history than I do, or than had the acquaintance of mine who happens to be Jay Gould's great*granddaughter. The only interest in him derives from his father. And besides that, it's just simple BLP courtesy not to repeat what is largely gossipy/promotional trash, no matter how "reliable" the source is. In the end, this fails the "why do we care?" test in a big way, since "because we're nosy about famous people's kids" is (a) the actual answer, (b) not satisfying GNG, and (c) baldly in contravention of BLP's letter and spirit. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Redirect not notable person. People only know him because he's the President's son. Abzeronow (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as before; I am not super interested in the question of whether this kid is notable because, as per per WP:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page", and seems obvious to me that (assuming for the sake of argument that he is independently notable) this is one of those cases. Everything interesting that can be said about him makes more sense in the context of his family. --JBL (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He's not a kid anymore... _pbp 18:07, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please try to restrict your pedantry to topics on which you might conceivably be correct. --JBL (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He's 19 now. He hasn't been a kid for over a year _pbp 20:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am in a bad mood so I will keep my response limited to the incredibly obvious point that the definition of "kid" is "young person, or any child of a parent" and not "person under the age of 18" and leave off any further comment about how pursuing this inane point reflects on you. --JBL (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Can somebody objectively explain to me why Barron Trump should be deleted or redirected but Tiffany Trump should be kept? She's barely in the public eye and her sourcing invariably references her daddy. Both Barron and Tiffany are of age now. NGL, if Barron succeeds in being deleted or redirected, I'm going to start that convo. _pbp 18:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The existence of one article has no bearing on another. For example, neither of Obama's children have a stand-alone article, they both redirect to Family of Barack Obama, so the opposite argument could be used. S0091 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Obama's children have far less media coverage.—ADavidB 18:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe but the question was about the mere existence of another article which is what I addressing. S0091 (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @S0091: You didn't actually ANSWER THE QUESTION... What justifies Tiffany having a stand-alone article and no Barron? Lay it out. _pbp 18:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do not yell or make demands. I can't tell you why Tiffany has a stand-alone article, nor does it matter that she does. Just like it does not matter if Obama's children have one or not or any other President's children, which was the point I was trying to make. None of it has any bearing on if Barron Trump should or should not have stand-alone article. That is what this AfD will decide. S0091 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, there's no rational reason why the articles should be treated differently, and the Barron one should be kept. Got it. _pbp 20:04, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to hang your hat on WP:OSE that's your prerogative. S0091 (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect passing mentions in connection to family. WP:NOTINHERITED. ValarianB (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel like a very large amount people know and can recognize him as a person, enough to warrant an article. ClovisBarnhopper (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — I am not convinced that an association between Trump and his father confers notability, and this article must be decided on its merits based on WP:GNG. As of this comment, Trump is only significant because he purportedly accrued voters for his father. If Trump were not born to a famous figure, that would not be sufficient. The "breadth" of coverage is quite narrow, evidenced by his limited career experience. However, I find that he is a recognizable figure and a subsection in an article would not be appropriate for the coverage he has received. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Arguments exclusively based on Trump's association with his father are invalid, per WP:INVALIDBIO. WP:NOTABILITY requires that articles on people meet two criteria: that an article is warranted, and that WP:BIO is met as a SNG; WP:BIO defers to WP:GNG if one of the specially-listed criteria is not met, which is the case here. Much of Trump's notability here is dependent upon his father, which itself is not explicitly handled by policy but mentioned in WP:INHERITED. I see no reason to oppose having this article in mainspace if the criteria at GNG, which appears to be the final arbiter of inclusion, are met. In terms of sourcing itself, it can be conceded that many of the sources included would not automatically give Trump significance—indeed, no claim of significance is made beyond Trump being the youngest son of Donald Trump, which itself is not sufficient per WP:INVALIDBIO—and certainly cannot be used to support notability. The mere "common knowledge" of Trump's existence is not relevant in this circumstance. A separation between Trump's connection to his father and his activities can and must be reasonably separated. However, as a political advisor, it can be argued that Trump is weakly notable for his role in influencing his father. Given at least one source, the Vanity Fair article, that directly covers him, significant coverage does exist. I do not see a reason to oppose on the basis that he has no significance, which appears to be the dividing principle here, not notability. On the basis of notability, Trump clearly meets the standards at WP:GNG. On the basis of significance, Trump is not a significant figure and him being a member of the Trump family cannot be used to support that. This situation would not be unusual for Wikipedia, where there are numerous examples of articles whose subjects are not significant or do not possess a claim of significance, but which otherwise exist, e.g. historical football players whose existence is justified by GNG deference through WP:SPORTCRIT. I see Trump as no different here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject has sufficient notability and breadth of reliable source coverage. Most of the sources do not only mention him in passing. Please read the article and check its source content before forming a decision on the AfD. A source assessment of the article's draft (not long before it was promoted) is also available. —ADavidB 23:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The number of reliable sources writing entire articles about Barron Trump is undeniable, even if the coverage is a bit trite. Passes WP:GNG. Go look at Barron Trump#References with a CiteHighligher script turned on and there's like 60 highlighted green, plus some books. Then search the page for the word "Barron" and look again at that references section: many of the sources mention him in the title, indicating he is the primary subject of those articles. He's been covered like 6 times in People Magazine, 3 times in The New York Times, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A number of the People citations appear to be interviews. Not useful for establishing notability. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Family of Donald Trump - lacks significant coverage about Barron's notability. All the sources derive from the fact he is the son of the current president. Notability is not inherited. Dan arndt (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whether notability is inherited or not is irrelevant. WP:NOTINHERITED (and the opposing argument) is part of an 'essay' on deletion, not a guideline or policy. Barron passes WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect when pieces that do cover Barron aren't primarily revolving around either of his parents or their comments on him (the latter wouldn't count as independent coverage due to the close affiliation both have with this guy), they only seem to be focused on mundane things like school, height, personal interests (including sports), and to a lesser extent one brief real estate endeavor. The lattermost is the only thing that could possibly stand out as more than a run-of-the-mill "I'm a student who largely stays out of the spotlight", but at least for now, it's not enough to convince me that he has garnered enough attention for things which have nothing to do with family ties. WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Family of Donald Trump - And since others have WP:OSE'd her, same for Tiffany. Until they do something independently notable, they are satellite personalities at best. -Jordgette [talk] 21:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't looked too closely at the article but I suspect Kai Trump (Don Jr's child) is a similar case. TarnishedPath^talk 23:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I know "other stuff exists", but we have articles like Tiffany Trump and Kai Trump. If both of those two articles were redirects, then I would support a redirect for the Barron Trump article. Some1 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Tiffany Trump gets her own page, so should Barron. NesserWiki (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether other people do or don't have their own pages isn't relevant here per WP:WAX, so let's keep the focus on whatever merits one for Barron has or lacks. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable person with notable amount of coverage. Ramos1990 (talk)
• Keep – Cleary notable by his own. Svartner (talk) 08:47, 7 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 23:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Educational Institutions (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)

Only routine news type references on the page. Nothing much to suggest this non-degree-awarding college is notable. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Karnataka. JMWt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 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 as long-term multiple-project hoax vandalism. I've just let the Simple English Wikipedia know that this is back. Wikiquote has had this, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2025 (UTC)‎[reply]

Alexander Lukison (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:NACTOR, WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alexander Lukinson and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Alexander Luka. Long-term abuse that had, until recently, usually been restricted only to draft space. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Politicians, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  what? This person is real Dih250 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This person is real I have his IMDb website on the link and all the information. What else do you need Dih250 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Hoax. Note https://the-politicianss.fandom.com/wiki/Alexander_Lukison , where person has same year of birth and cousin, but now is a politician and founder of a political party (founded at age 19). IMDb entry was written by "Alex", and has no corroboration. Also note deletion notice for https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lukison_2024.jpg . Deleted drafts referred to above are about the same person: Age, relative, and birthplaces have shared commonalities. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Probably is fake, sources I pull up in Gnews are all from Indonesia or elsewhere, in other languages. Literally nothing in English, about this English person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 30 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. Owen× ☎ 18:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table-oriented programming (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)

Neither of the two existing refs mention the subject. Searches turned up lots of mentions, mostly on unreliable sources. Could not find any in-depth coverage of the sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Created here on Wikipedia directly by TimNelson (talk · contribs) at the same time as a Tim Nelson created https://wayland.github.io/table-oriented-programming/TOP/Introduction/What.xml that is the same thing. It is a violation of our no original research policy to use Wikipedia as a direct publication platform for a new thesis. It's not the same as the last time, true, Girth Summit, but it is equally as vague and woolly. Commenters on lobste.rs (that weren't those acknowledging a connection to the author) noted that it could cover practically anything where a table was somehow involved, and that's nowhere near being the level of peer review and acknowledgement by the world at large that this needs. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an unsourced essay of synthesis and original research. From Day One, Wikipedia has never published original research. There are plenty of other places to publish this content, but not here. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Responding to ping above - I had no recollection of having declined a speedy on this article, but the history tells me I did so I must have! My decline should not be read as any sort of endorsement of the article, I merely compared it with the previous version, saw that it wasn't the same text, noted that there was a >10 year gap between the two, and thought that a speedy deletion wasn't appropriate. No objection from me if the consensus is to delete this version. Girth Summit _(blether) 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 redirect‎ to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Owen× ☎ 18:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sibongiseni Shabalala (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)

Only notable as one member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo and poorly sourced for a long time. Shoudl just be a list of members in that group's article and provide brief mention there. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Sibongiseni Shabalala has some importance as the son of the group’s founder, but I agree with the nominator on a lack of notability outside the group. I can find nothing reliable or descriptive on his side band and their albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect I've tried to find some kind of coverage in RS, but there doesn't seem to be any so I redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 14:44, 6 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 redirect‎ to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Owen× ☎ 18:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thamsanqa Shabalala (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)

Only notable as a member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo and poorly sourced for over a decade. Could just be mentioned in the main article with other people only notable for their connection to that group. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:54, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Thamsanqa Shabalala has some prominence as the group’s current lead singer, though the nominator is correct about lack of notability outside the group. I can find little reliable coverage of his side band and their albums. The events that led to this gentleman being promoted to lead singer can be covered at the group’s article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:39, 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 redirect‎ to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thulani Shabalala (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)

Only notable as a member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo and no significant coverage of them independently from that group. Poor sourcing. Should just be a mention among a list of members at Ladysmith Black Mambazo. ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. The nominator is correct about lack of notability outside the group, and his side group and there albums seemed to escape the notice of reliable music media. The comings and goings of other members around when this gentleman joined or was promoted can be described at the group’s article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:31, 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. Owen× ☎ 18:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Zindani High School (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)

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found only self-published and/or indiscriminate sources, and one sentence on a local government website.[28] Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. If there were an article about Nimaichara Union, where Samaj is located, I would redirect there, but there isn't. Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Searched for school in news and Google, could not find any reference or articles. Rupesh Kumar Saigal (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:50, 30 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. The argument to redirect has once convincing rebuttal that I cannot overrule. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arizona and Washington, D.C., hunger strike (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)

As was predicted by delete !voters in 2021 and 2022, this event has not had any persistent coverage. I cannot find news coverage since the strike ended; it is not mentioned in articles about other acts of youth protest or otherwise used as a point of comparison. All I find googling it is tons of other hunger strikes that do not have articles, because hunger strikes, while dramatic, are a not-infrequent act of political protest, and usually do not pass WP:GNG, let alone the higher bar of WP:NEVENT. (Morbid but true, usually the thing that makes a hunger strike pass those bars is someone dying, which did not happen in this case.) Perhaps there's room for a single sentence at For the People Act (currently neither that nor John Lewis Voting Rights Act mention this), but not for an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only news coverage, no indication this has lasting prominence or has been used as a WP:CASESTUDY. I'm not convinced this should be mentioned in the articles about the bills unless sources about the bills' history specifically mention this (per WP:MINORASPECT). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Think a simple Redirect to the For the People Act with a mention of the strike would be preferable than deleting it outright. Article is well sourced, but don't think it merits a standalone article on its own. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No indication of lasting effects or persistent coverage. The title is long and not intuitive, so not a plausible redirect. Astaire (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say that having previously been an article would still make the title plausible, since it might be linked from somewhere off-wiki, or someone might remember the title or have it bookmarked or search. The article got 400 views in 2024, which is low but nontrivial. The real question, for redirection versus deletion, is whether there's something to redirect to. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:48, 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 redirect‎ to Bobby Lashley#The Pride (2023–2024). Owen× ☎ 18:03, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride (professional wrestling) (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)

WWE stable lasting around a year and the content is pretty much same in Bobby Lashley and Street Profits. Suggest blank and redirect to Bobby Lashley#The Pride (2023–2024) since mostly revolves around him. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Lashley. I was thinking to nominate it for a long time. No in-deep coverage of the stable, just WP:ROUTINE results. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:32, 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. Owen× ☎ 18:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaz Jamirun Noor High School (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)

Was kept at 2015 AfD per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Since the February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found nothing that would meet WP:NSCHOOL. If there were an article about Lakshmansree Union, where Janigoan is located, I would redirect there, but there isn't. Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After a thorough search, I only managed to find sources with very little mention of the school itself. No sources even when doing a regional search for Bangladesh. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CCC. Our standards for schools have evolved, as has mine. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 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 redirect‎ to Pat McAfee. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of NXT (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)

Short-lived WWE NXT stable that does not require an article. Suggest redirecting to Pat McAfee. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Pat. No in-deep coverage about the stable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:32, 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 keep‎. The article has seen massive improvement in both content and sourcing since the nom, likely correctly, merged it, to the point where I now see consensus to keep it as a standalone article, a consensus now shared by the nom herself. Owen× ☎ 18:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Unicorn Gundam (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)

Boldly merged and BLARed this to Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn but was reverted. I do not think this statue warrants a standalone article. There is barely any meaningful content here; the article more closely resembles an entry in a travel guide for prospective tourists than an encyclopedia article, and the topic can be amply covered within the article about the series (edit: as I discussed later in the AfD following additional edits to the article, I think it would fit best as a section of DiverCity Tokyo Plaza) or on the Cultural impact of Gundam page (or both). silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: The article has certainly improved, but I still think that the content in its current state would be better served as a subsection of another article where the topic can be given more thorough context.) silviaASH (inquire within) 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Travel and tourism, Popular culture, and Japan. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG and HEY. Re: "There is barely any meaningful content here" -- WP:SOFIXIT! This nomination is a statement about the current state of the article, not the amount of coverage the subject has received. I'm not convinced WP:BEFORE was completed and this should probably have started with an article talk page discussion. I've added quite a few sources to the article, which should be expanded and improved, not deleted. I also see there are quite a few non-English sources, if any multilingual editors are able to review. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I did look up the subject before nominating- I didn't see an extraordinary amount of coverage. While the subject does clearly satisfy GNG, I still don't think it meets WP:PAGEDECIDE, even after the improvements that have been made. I just don't think there's that much to say about the topic that can't slot neatly into a section on Cultural impact of Gundam or DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, both articles which themselves could use some improvement. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "the subject does clearly satisfy GNG" is a reason to keep the article. Instead of worrying about how to update multiple articles about the topic, I think it makes more sense to focus on updating this article, so I'll keep workin' on it! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, I went and looked at the sources that have been added more closely, and while it's evident that there's more to talk about in regards to the statue than I may have initially thought, I still think that all of this information would be better off merged into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article. Many of the currently cited sources ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]) only mention the statue trivially, in a long list of other recommended tourist spots. They say it's cool and everything (don't get me wrong, the statue is very cool and I'd personally love to go see it), but don't really address it in detail, so I don't think all of these qualify as WP:SIGCOV. The sources which do address the topic significantly ([42], [43], [44], [45]) do shed more light on the creation and establishment of the statue as an attraction and the motives for its construction, but I think all of this information could be summed up in about a paragraph within the DiverCity article. Two of the sources are just mirrors of one another ([46], [47]).

  Finally, the last couple of citations ([48], [49]) don't really talk about the statue itself so much as they talk about the place where the statue happens to be. The SoraNews source, in particular, primarily uses the Unicorn Gundam as the lead to talk about the DiverCity Plaza as a whole, and its many Gundam attractions. This is also the case with several of the 13 citations that mention the statue trivially- they do it within sentences (sometimes even within the same sentence) of bringing it up as the main attraction at the DiverCity Plaza. The headline of the paragraph in this source, just to name one of them, says as the heading of the paragraph in which the statue is acknowledged, Gundam-themed mall opened in Tokyo. This is a clear and consistent pattern even in the sources which acknowledge the statue non-trivially- they primarily discuss it as the centerpiece of DiverCity, and its numerous other Gundam-related attractions.

  This is why I think the statue isn't independently notable. It isn't ever discussed independently of the mall. For this reason, I think it would be best (again, per WP:PAGEDECIDE), to merge the contents of the article into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article, and discuss it as the primary attraction of that area. Being discussed in a standalone article means that readers are missing the context of the statue's ultimate purpose, which is to attract people to the mall and hopefully get them to purchase a Gunpla. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. We'll have to agree to disagree, but for now I've added several additional news sources specifically focused on the statue and I'll continue to tinker at the article as I have time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or maybe redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, which already has a paragraph on this. This is a statue at a shopping mall with no sign that this is a significant monument. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I'm not sure if we have a notability guideline for statues or art installations or attractions (though, if we do, I'd definitely like to know about it), but this likewise seems to me to not be independently notable of the DiverCity Plaza. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'd say since WP:ARTIST has standards like "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or "The person's work has become a significant monument," then notability for an individual work of art would have similar standards. This statue is not a significant new concept, doesn't display significant new techniques, isn't a significant monument, etc. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Easily meets notability requirements with lots of coverage in RS. APK hi :-) (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article seems quite underdeveloped. Is there any reason these articles couldn't be merged? I think this needs someone to check through Japanese sources to establish the notability of both subjects. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per APK, easily meets GNG and HEY. Lots of adequate sourcing on the page. Seems the fact that it is exhibited at a shopping mall is being used as a negative of some kind. Many statues are in malls, airports, etc., public places where people gather are fine venues for artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Been thinking I may have made a mistake in opening an AfD (I jumped to that thinking it was necessary because of the reversed BLAR) and I should have opened a merge proposal discussion instead. I still don't think the article meets PAGEDECIDE, but I ought to have given more consideration to if AfD was the appropriate venue for that concern. Anyway, at this point I think I don't support deletion in any case, with the clear improvements the article has received, this should be either kept or merged. If this AfD closes as keep I'll wait a bit for development to happen and perhaps consider discussing a merge down the line if I feel that my criticisms remain relevant. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Such a full and improved page shouldn't be merged, as the only reason for a merge would be its location and not judging the artwork on its own merits. Commendable comment, not every nominator (far from it) will reconsider their nom during a useful discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)a[reply]

• Weak keep. Right now it's not very big, but there is enough coverage for this to merit stand-alone article. I expect more sources could be found in Japanese. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza per Asparagusstar if no sources are found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even the nominator no longer thinks the article should be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources added is good enough. This is even excluding any JP lang sources. ITmedia, Famitsu, Nikkei Another ITMedia. This way way enough for a seperate article, I was only in page 5 on Google News in JP name search and I can confidently say this is enough. We should not merge start-class article with a full pledge sections. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:23, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I added the Japanese name so you can search it the JPN name. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with DiverCity Tokyo Plaza. Maybe like 2-4 paragraphs. Can't seem to find any reliable sources to show notability as a standalone article, but the shown references probably allow a section. I have read WP:NOPAGE before making my opinion. Yours truly, Stuffinwriting | talk 03:11, 5 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 redirect‎ to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abednego Mazibuko (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)

Person is only notable for being a member of the larger group and there is no significant coverage of him individually. Not notable himself, and this should be deleted, perhaps just a redirect to the larger group's page. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. Abednego Mazibuko has some more prominence as a 50-year member and close relative of the group’s founder, but the nominator is correct about lack of notability outside the group. The comings and goings of other members around when this gentleman joined or was promoted can be described at the group’s article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect I've tried to find some kind of coverage in RS, but there doesn't seem to be any so I redirect to Ladysmith Black Mambazo. 190.219.103.171 (talk) 14:29, 6 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rehaa Khann (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 Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Randompersonediting (✍️•📚) 12:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, zero evidence of notability, the sources consist of a photo gallery, a press release, and a music video. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: References do not support subject's notability as an actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS. B-Factor (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as actress, model and producer is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's getting better but not quite there. Please add more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I checked cited sources and did BEFORE, but found no significant coverage in these sources, the News18 and ANI sources are unreliable as both are PR and SPONSORED. Fails GNG and NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 05:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. No significant coverage in reliable, independent sources; existing references (photo gallery, press release, music video) do not establish notability. NXcrypto Message 20:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:51, 6 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 12:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Krstić (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)

He played 31 minutes of professional league before going down to lower tiers. Corresponding article on Serbian Wikipedia has many references, but even secondary sources are just passing mentions in routine announcements, if I could read them correctly. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject does not appear to have the WP:SIGCOV needed for a WP:SPORTSBASIC pass. Let'srun (talk) 03:11, 6 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakkari Expedition 1916 (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 article relies on a single primary source, and its tone is unbalanced. For a long time, no additional sources were added, and it is difficult to find references for such a minor battle. Although the Assyrians retreated during this battle, it is still considered a victory because the source comes from a book written by one of the Assyrian leaders who participated in the war. However, the part stating that the Assyrians retreated has been removed. Here is the old version of the article [1]. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sikorki (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iraq, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The single source is not a primary source - this indicates a misunderstanding of what a primary source is. Moreover, it is irrelevant at AfD whether an article relies on primary sources (completely acceptable), uses only a single source (not preferred, but okay), is non-neutral or incomplete (because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP) - this indicates a misunderstanding of this process. That being the case, the impulse is to toss this nomination without further ado. A google search turns up multiple references. [50] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hawkeye7 note that GNG does generally require multiple secondary sources: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Also note WP:OR: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. The book describes itself as "first-hand", which suggests that it's a primary source (though I have not looked at the source itself so this could be misleading). But none of this matters because it looks like it's self-published. The article should be kept if those references you've added give significant coverage, but it's hard to tell from WP:GOOGLEHITS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The mistake that many newbies make is assuming that the sources required by GNG to establish notability must be those used in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Possibly to the Assyrian volunteers or the Persian campaign (World War I). There is a lot of information about the genocide and the overall fighting in that region of the world, but I am not finding anything referring to this as an Expedition. Moritoriko (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Weak consensus at present that there is material to preserve, unclear whether as stand alone, or elsewhere, no clarity on target if elsewhere. Further specific source analysis and clarity on possible target would be helpful in developing the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 30 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 ABU Radio Song Festival. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan in the ABU TV Song Festival (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)

Originally created when the event was announced in a Eurovision Song Contest-style format for each participating country, however this event has not gained nearly the same level of media attention or general awareness, and thus I believe individual country articles outlining participation in these events do not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidance. Specifically I refer to WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, as from what I can see coverage of these events is limited to fan media and promotional releases. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same series of country articles for the ABU Song Festivals:

Australia in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Australia in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brunei in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brunei in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

China in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hong Kong in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

India in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

India in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indonesia in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Indonesia in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Japan in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kazakhstan in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kyrgyzstan in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Macau in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malaysia in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Malaysia in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maldives in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maldives in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pakistan in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Singapore in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Singapore in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

South Korea in the ABU Radio Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

South Korea in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sri Lanka in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thailand in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tunisia in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Turkey in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vietnam in the ABU TV Song Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Afghanistan. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tunisia, Brunei, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, India, Turkey, and Australia. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The sources for these articles are either primary sources (the ABU) or Eurovision-related sites that include passing mention of ABU participants (since the idea is that these events would be appealing to ESC fans). Even with that, the information was largely reformatted from press releases. As the nominator noted, these events never gained traction nor are they competitive like their inspiration's format. The yearly occurrences (ABU Radio Song Festival 2012, ABU TV Song Festival 2012, etc, - both GAs!) appear to have enough coverage, but I'm not sure what's accomplished by having a list of the handful of songs that each country 'sent' to be showcases (not voted on by the public). It's an interesting event, but these pages are remnants of an attempt to treat it like its much larger/more impactful, which was a product of being part of the former WP:ESC and its page creation structure (now deprecated for non-competitive events). These pages could be replaced by a single article "List of ABU Radio Song Festival songs" or whathaveyou, but that's probably the extent of it given where notability stands and I wouldn't make this deletion contingent on its creation (or an alternative). Grk1011 (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A merge as suggested by Grk1011 might be useful. It could probably fit on ABU Radio Song Festival rather than a new page, that's not a very exhaustive article. CMD (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ABU Radio Song Festival : as WP:Alternative to deletion. Was a check of sources in the language(s) of every country performed? Because that is what should have been done... -Mushy Yank. 18:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The languages are entirely unsourced. Grk1011 (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The main article won't benefit from any of the by-country detail, which is already covered in aggregate by the yearly competition articles. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ABU Radio Song Festival (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not have time to search for sources about the 30 articles that have been nominated for deletion. I am commenting only to note that I oppose deletion and support a redirect to save the page history per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I support boldly restoring the articles in the future if any editor thinks the topics pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing is really deleted though. These country pages just group the same information that already exists on the contest year pages. Grk1011 (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer retaining the pages' history because redirects are cheap and so that non-admins in the future can review those pages to see if there is anything useful to merge or reuse. It is possible that useful information has been added to some of these 30 pages that is not present on the other pages. Deleting the page histories would prevent non-admins from verifying this in the future. Cunard (talk) 01:50, 6 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.