< March 16 March 18 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Direct Ministries

Impact Direct Ministries (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)

Created by a single purpose account. Could not find sources in google news or books. Supplied sources are insufficient this is a 1 line mention, the other 4 sources are all dead links. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen C. Frederico

Stephen C. Frederico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An early career researcher who doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. Has some research output through their early training; good for their career stage, but with H-factor of 6 is a long way from demonstrating impact. Contested PROD, which is why I've now brought it here. Klbrain (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The news coverage was about Folds of Honor, with Frederico being used as an example of a studentship recipient; so, not the primary topic, so insufficient for establishing notability. However, I'll let other express their views. Klbrain (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A working researcher, not notable. Student of the year and a Daily Point of light award are not notable, the rest are about receiving fellowships, which aren't awards, more like scholarships. I don't see that this person warrants an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Article has credible sources, verifiable and seems like the person's online notability has already been acquired. Pages with even less notable sources are often found on wikipedia, not justifying but I think this page meets the criteria to stay online. Canekangaroo (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please nominate those pages that do not meet notability, that's the point of AfD. This person has online sources, yes, but he's not much different than any other person in a similar situation. Simply holding a job and publishing things does not get you an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Would argue that your point regarding fellowships is incorrect entirely. After reviewing the fellowships for the American Brain Tumor Association and the American Society for Clinical Investigation it appears those fellowships were indeed early career grant awards that were awarded due to an early career investigator having a highly competitive project (grant) application. Not scholarships (funds used to pay for tuition).
    Additionally the Daily Point of Light Award was created by a sitting U.S. president (George Bush Sr) and is administered through his foundation. If we are using the standard that only nobel prizes and/or election to the national academy of medicine makes a researcher worthy of a bio, a lot of articles need to be deleted from this platform.
    Would have to argue the researcher has done a lot more than simply holding a job and publishing things as they have received a significant amount of press for their work in independent sources secondary sources that are reliable, and received multiple notable awards for their work. Baseballandbrews (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Frederico is using his fellowship, which comes with a $50,000 prize, to support a year of funded brain tumor research at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston." It's a funding grant for a year, that is not notable, that's how research gets done. No funding, no research. I doubt very much Federico would do this for free. Again, a "Daily Point of Light" award is a trivial win. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You originally characterized the award as a scholarship - which based on your new comment appears not to be the case. The award is an early career investigator award, requiring an application process, etc.
    Additionally, there are many notable early career grants that award funds in the amount of $50,000, not just this one, I would encourage you to look at NIH grants (R03), American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Young Investigator Award, etc. I don't think anyone would argue these aren't notable. American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI) is right up there and is a highly respected org within the sciences. I think we can both agree that "notability" is highly subjective and based on a personal interpretation - if you're saying early career awards/$50,000 is not notable, and awards from presidential foundations are not notable, then what is? Baseballandbrews (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So he's still too early in his career, with nothing published that makes him different from any other early career researcher. And no, we have strict standards for notability here, this person is an academic, so we're looking at academic notability. He's not there yet. Giving a researcher money isn't notable, that's how science gets done these days. We need to see a notable contribution to their field of study, not simply doing research. You've not shown that this individual meets anything we'd consider notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Point of Light is for volunteer work, you're claiming this person is an academic. One isn't supporting the other, they're either notable for their volunteer work or for being an academic. There have been around 7000 winners in the last 35 years, that's not terribly notable alone. It's nice to honor volunteer work, but that alone isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMIC is one route to notability, but I think wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) is another important factor to consider. If multiple independent sources discuss the subject's work in depth, they meet general notability, which is sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion, even if WP:NACADEMIC isn’t fully met. The article has added reliable and independent sources that demonstrate significant coverage beyond routine citations. Given this, the article should not be deleted. JohnGaming (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining in detail. But notability is not solely based on citation metrics like the H-index. WP:NACADEMIC discusses multiple criteria for establishing notability, for example awards, influential collaborations or substantial independent coverage. Point is that the subject’s contributions extend beyond just research output and have been recognized in independent sources. Deleting the article would overlook a broader impact that aligns with Wikipedia’s notability and other standards, no? Sujon004 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be keeping in line with Wikipedia's standards of notability and being a reliable source of information, not a dumping ground for anything and everything that we can possibly host. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b. Additionally, this article was published in the mainspace directly instead of submitting for review by a self-admitted WP:PAID editor without a proper declaration and those are both serious violations of Wikipedia policy and should probably be reported to WP:COIN. Between that and the de-prod by an SPA this whole thing reeks of promo/paid editing. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service and saying that there are other articles that are similar is a completely invalid article per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The paid editors get very concerned and tend to bombard the comment sections in AfD, as we're seeing here. This is another red flag; generally speaking, if the person was notable, it wouldn't need to be debated and should be self-evident. Every time we present evidence to the contrary, there is another barrage of comments from the same two or three editors. We see this over and over in AfD, this case seems to be no different. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable in the old way as in time to go. scope_creepTalk 21:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The majority of his articles are all published in the "frontiers in ..." journals, such as Frontiers in Oncology. Frontiers publishes 229 different "frontiers in ..." journals. I looked up the listed editors on some of the journals and none of them have the editorship in their work bio; some do not appear to do research in the area of the journal they are listed as editing. So I'm not seeing prestige in the journal he mainly publishes in. He has a total of ~100 citations. Lamona (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. No sourcing to satisfy the GNG discussed. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Border Inn

Border Inn (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)

Motel that fails WP:NBUILDING, other than a cute fact that the motel is in both Nevada and Utah, I don't see anything else significant about this motel. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meemo (company)

Meemo (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No establishment of notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources were now added. Does it still fall under 'no establishment of notability'? Abcsomwiz (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't access the Venture Capital Journal source but none of the other sources satisfy WP:SIRS. The information in Built In comes entirely from a conversation with the founders, so it is not independent (and the site's reliability is questionable - basically a corporate site with a blog). This TechCrunch article I found similarly fails independence. The other sources in the article only contain routine or trivial coverage, or are obviously non-independent. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. It is clear that "keep" presently has the numbers. However, I'm closing this as no consensus, with no prejudice against relisting pending further work on the article or discussion on its talk page, since it is clear that the editorial discussion about the nature of "shopping parades" is not concluded, and may impact where we choose to place the material that has been brought up in this AfD. For now, please try to work this out editorially. asilvering (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping parade

Shopping parade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICT. This is just a fancy term for a line of shops; there is nothing to say on the subject. TheLongTone (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree that there is nothing much to say on the subject. And, in any case, it is term that would be readily understood by the majority of readers. Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to vote on this one then, since I may not be understanding the full picture. I personally still do not understand how/why this topic warrants its own page. I just don't see why the colloquial term for a bunch of shops in a row warrants its own page, even if it is mentioned in a lot of sources. jolielover♥talk 03:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Delete per WP:NOTADICTIONARY jolielover♥talk 17:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete -- violates WP:NOTDICT (see below). Mrfoogles (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep, see below. Delete, WP:NOTDICT. Additionally, Redirect + Merge with Strip mall. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 18:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but do not redirect to Strip mall; this is just a name used in England for a street with shops along it, which is not a strip mall. I2Overcome talk 18:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, shops came along later and aren't fundamental to parades, according to the book that I finally found. But yes, going by what the book says, U.K. parades and arcades and promenades and esplanades are definitely not strip malls. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree this should not be redirected to Strip mall Mrfoogles (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's false anyway. That's not at all how "parade" comes to be used like this. ISBN 9781119881032 pp. 144–145. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • So what you're saying is that you have another independent reliable source about parade's of shops. That looks like another reason to keep Neonchameleon (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is about parades not having shops in the first place, so it is a reason that what you are inventing is unverifiable against an expert-written source. Uncle G (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're claiming that a claim sourced to a reliable source was something I invented? Not only are you using reliable sources that demonstrate notability in some bizarre argument to delete, but wp:AGF springs to mind. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm using a source from an expert in English language socio-linguistic history who explains that parades are actually railway and seafront things, and shopping is incidental. This does not in any way demonstrate notability of assertions that the source flatly contradicts. Are you going to invent shopping arcade too? The expert explains that those are arcades with shops, and that's how we actually have them in Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry. Are you literally accusing me of inventing the terms "shopping parade" and "parade of shops"? When between the two terms there are already approaching a couple of hundred uses on Wikipedia with only a tiny handful of them being near railways or seafronts? We have another example here of someone who doesn't understand the term, thus further refuting the idea it will be understood by an overwhelming majority of readers. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why the nominator thinks there's nothing to say on the subject is beyond me and looks like a clear failure of wp:before. Multiple reliable sources on the subject are part of the stub, thus passing wp:N - and at least one of the sources goes into the history, making it subject to the wp:WORDISSUBJECT exception for the notadictionary policy. The idea that "the term would be understood by the majority of readers" would have a whole lot of pages eliminated (like strip mall) and is nothing more than wp:IDONTLIKEIT; the deletion standards are far higher than "the majority" while the fact that one of the contributors thinks it should be merged with strip mall demonstrates conclusively that even among Wikipedians participating in this AfD not everyone understands what a parade of shops is. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did any of the chorus of deletes do a WP:BEFORE on this topic? It's patently false that "there is nothing to say".
  • Astaire (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, otherwise logically I couldn't have found and pointed to an source from an expert at the University of Cambridge explaining that Historic England has got it wrong. The London Assembly report is a good example, in fact. It starts talking about "neighbourhood parades". As the expert explains, parades were railway (and also seafront) things in the U.K. that evolved into long social-activity streets, and shopping is incidental to the fact that people parade up and down them doing social stuff in general. Xe doesn't support shopping parades as distinct any more than xe supports all of the U.K.'s Station Parades as distinct singular concepts. Amusingly, your A&C source even told you that parades are social centres, had you but read its abstract, which is a bit ironic given what you are calling out other people for. You're clearly doing superficial research by mere title phrase matching. After all, if you had even got as far as reading the executive summary of the London Assembly report you would have seen it in reality cover corner shops (not unexpected given the title), shopping centres, supermarkets, and small businesses. Further on it goes into town and country planning in the United Kingdom under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. This is the usual oft-seen at AFD poor show of throwing title phrase matches into a discussion, accusing everyone else of not doing the work, without actually doing the work of reading the things that are matched. Uncle G (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, otherwise logically I couldn't have found and pointed to an source from an expert at the University of Cambridge explaining that Historic England has got it wrong. You have shown no such thing, beyond vague gesturing at a source that in reality contradicts you. The Social Life of Words explicitly acknowledges that a "shopping parade" is a real phenomenon with a distinct definition.
      • "However, the young people on monkey parades also paraded along SHOPPING PARADES in the sense of ‘short urban or suburban stretches of shops’. The Oxford English Dictionary conflates both these senses under parade, n. 1 4.: ‘a public square or promenade; (also) a row of shops in a town, or the street on which they are situated’."
      • "The reason parade developed the meaning ‘short suburban stretch of shops selling basic necessities’ was due to the building boom of the second half of the nineteenth century caused by the advent of rail travel."
      The London Assembly report is a good example, in fact. It starts talking about "neighbourhood parades". The report uses the term "shopping parade" more often than it does "neighbourhood parade", and in context "neighbourhood parades" is clearly a synonym for shopping parades, given that the report is entirely about retail shops.
      shopping is incidental to the fact that people parade up and down them doing social stuff in general. Xe doesn't support shopping parades as distinct Again, see the two quotes above. This is a stunning misrepresentation of the source.
      Amusingly, your A&C source even told you that parades are social centres Please do not selectively quote from the source when we can all read it. The article makes it clear that the primary function of shopping parades is shopping, not socializing.
        • "Thousands of shopping parades were built on suburban high roads and in estates, providing the residents of these new communities not just with a local place to shop for their daily (or more major needs) but also offering a center for local activities and interactions, both informal and formal."
        • "Interwar suburban shopping parades remain today in their thousands, providing a highly visible material record of a time and place where changes in retailing, in consumption and in investment practices gave birth to new retail environments and transformed the street scene. In an era of mass consumerism that facilitated shopping for pleasure as well as daily needs, these smart and welcoming new buildings were a characteristic element of many people’s everyday environment."
      Astaire (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Astaire and Neonchameleon. Also, I was able to find a bit more coverage of shopping parades in Innovation: The History of England Volume VI by Peter Ackroyd. Opm581 (talk | he/him) 08:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there are entire books about the history, architecture and sociology of shopping parades I don't think we can brush them off with a quick WP:NOTDICTIONARY; indeed, on that basis, we would have tens of thousands of articles defining everyday things which fell into that category. Yes, the article is a stub; yes, it can and should be improved, but AfD is not for that. At the very least, I think the material could be merged into Shopping center. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Convinced by the sources offered by "keep" !voters above that this topic meets WP:GNG on both sourcing and the test of a standalone page. It appears to be sufficiently distinct as a concept from strip mall, neighborhood shopping center, shopping mall and shopping arcade not to warrant merging into one of those pages. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment: This complete shift in opinion is unusual. @TheLongTone, Mike Marchmont, Jolielover, Mrfoogles, and CF-501 Falcon: Could the "delete" proponents please comment on the sources proposed by the later "keep" proponents? Sandstein 21:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not checking in here. Will change, there are multiple compelling arguments. Thank you! CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 22:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The list of sources is longer than the text of the article. This is a padded DICDEF. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the sources listed in the AFD, though, it could be expanded a lot (look at the Historic England source specifically, and the paper about interwar shopping parades) -- article notability is not based on the current content of articles at all (yes, it's currently a DICDEF) but what they could be, which based on the sources now available is a different thing altogether. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The paper seems like a good source at first, but then it says this: "Within existing policy and research on neighbourhood parades there is a common ambiguity of terms and definitions. The available research makes reference, interchangeably, to ‘neighbourhood retailing’, ‘local shops’, ‘small shops’, ‘local centres’, ‘convenience retailing’, ‘parades of shops’, ’secondary retailing’, and other typologies"
So I don't know if this supports this having its own article.
https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/london-assembly-publications/cornered-shops-londons-small-shops-and additionally just uses the term while discussing local retailing. I think that these sources could be used for an article for local shopping, definitely, though.
Looking at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20507828.2017.1399760, though, presents a stronger argument for shopping parades as their own phenomenon. And https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/iha-shopping-parades/heag116-shopping-parades-iha is additionally a strong source describing shopping parades specifically.
Overall, I'm voting keep given that there are two sources describing these things in detail now. The opposing argument is centered around the sources given being wrong, which I don't see, or stating that they are a social phenomenon, which wouldn't disqualify them from being an thing worth talking about. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources presented above make it clear that this is an encyclopaedic topic we should have coverage of. Whether that subject is shopping parades in their narrowest sense or something slightly broader is something that can be discussed but none of the options require or even justify deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator I see lots of assertions that this is a noteworthy topic which might impress me if anybody was making any' effort to improve the article beyond a dictionary definition. I do not see how 'parade' is anything more than a pretentious name fo 'row of shops'. I really dislike editors who assert that something is a noteworthy topic and are completely unable or unwilling to actually do some work on the subject.TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment there are currently examples of sources on retail, on urban planning, on sociology, and on history, and probably more. If you can't see the potential of the subject of the article that is a you problem. If you are claiming that because it is not there yet (and we aren't made of time) the article should be deleted despite clearly sailing past wp:N, with wp:SIGCOV in multiple wp:RS then I would point out that it is an active misuse of AfD to use it to get articles improved. And your only policy based reason for the AfD demonstrates a failure of the very most basic part wp:BEFORE to check the sources that were already there and that provided wp:SIGCOV (and that would clearly not be in a dictionary). Neonchameleon (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NEXIST, notability demonstrated by sourcing in the discussion above; generally speaking the current state of the article (or the immediate willingness or lack thereof of editors to make improvements) should have little bearing on a notability discussion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to RuPaul's Drag Race (with material also relevant for related contestants and awards pages). Consensus that forking of material unnecessary and overly unencyclopedic information. Goldsztajn (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Production of RuPaul's Drag Race

Production of RuPaul's Drag Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:COATRACK for RuPaul's Drag Race trivia and miscellania. No idea what "recurring challenges" have to do with "filming" or an article about the production in general, and why e.g. the unsourced "The recurring "She-mail" (a play on "Tyra-Mail" on America's Next Top Model) segment was discontinued." is included (or why the play on "she-male" isn't mentioned).

We have "Members wear "modesty cups" in their underwear to hide the silhouettes of genitalia." or "Willam was disqualified for violating rules while taping season 4" or "RuPaul's outfits are often inspired by the episode's main challenge or popular culture." or "RuPaul ends episodes by saying, "If you can't love yourself, how in the hell are you going to love somebody else?" The phrase was inspired by his mother." as if they somehow create a narrative and tell us something about the "Production" of the show.

If the production of the show warrants a separate article, it would be best to WP:TNT it and start from scratch, not from this hotchpotch of, well, whatever it is. It's probably quite telling that nothing in the lead is about the production of the show, and nothing in the lead is repeated in the body either. Fram (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge This has some decent information, but I'm confused why it's on a separate page. RuPaul's Drag Race should just have a production section with much of this content that isn't already duplicative (who the judges are, that "reading" and Snatch Game are recurring challenges, etc), obvious (does it really need to be pointed out that contestants must follow rules or that Ru helps select lip-sync songs?) or overly wordy/detailed (Sentences each naming non-notable crew members, one of many creative Emmys received). As a reader who sometimes watches this show, I'd want to learn about this organized with related context on the main page rather than pushed into an overlapping subarticle. No other such production pages exist for reality shows (Production of Sense8 appearing to be the only one for TV but obviously with much more content), and prose length does not warrant a split here. Reywas92Talk 17:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a notable topic. Article is not a COATRACK and nom doesn't say anything about secondary coverage. I also strongly agree with comment re: merge to parent article; I'd argue the opposite, that RuPaul's Drag Race is long enough to justify moving content over to the Production page. All of these sections need to be expanded, but I couldn't even be afforded 24 hours from page creation to work on expansion before being summoned to AfD. Conception and development? More to say. Casting? Emmy noms. Music? Way more to say: Lucian Piane, Leland, Freddy Scott, etc. Directing? Emmy noms. Host? Emmy noms/wins. Choreo? More to say: Candis Cayne, Jamal Sims, Emmy noms, etc. Make-up artistry? More to say: Mathu Andersen, Raven, Emmy noms, etc. Hair design? Delta Work, Emmy nom. Costuming? Zaldy, Emmy wins, etc. Overall, the series has received 70+ Emmy noms, many of which have to do with production. There's so much more content to add, what a shame editors are discussing an underdeveloped page which should be expanded via collaboration and not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The show is a notable topic. This is inherently a subtopic of it, or a collection of several subtopics, not an independently notable topic, and should only be split when warranted. However, the main article is not too long to include more content. It's only 3551 words readable prose size, or about half of what WP:LENGTH recommends to justify a split – and most of the season summaries are formulaic repetition that just duplicate the judge and season tables as prose, and the international adaptations section can be trimmed since there's a whole article that covers this info. I somewhat disagree with nom in that much of this (but not all) is worth keeping, just not on a separate page.
    The most similar show (non-scripted, multiple seasons) at WP:FA is The Masked Singer (American TV series), which is a great example of how the main article can have a production section that includes thorough subsections for conception and development, casting, design, costumes, set, music, and filming, as well as all the same other sections. None of these need a separate page. At all. You can even put some prose on List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants for casting and List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race for the Emmy noms (and the Accolades section that's just two sentences). There's a reason why other shows don't have separate production articles – it's relevant content that ought to be included for readers of the main article! It's so weird for all this content to be partitioned from the rest of the topic – do you want people to read your work or just hope they notice a see also link? And you'd ought to use WP:Summary style anyway, which would of course result in more duplication. Please don't give us "couldn't even be afforded 24 hours", you know perfectly well how to use draftspace – or just write in the underdeveloped main article that can use more relevant content ("expanded via collaboration") and split when actually needed. Reywas92Talk 03:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Reywas9 said, "a collection of several subtopics". If the costumes of the show are a topic which has received lots of attention which would overwhelm the main article, then an article specifically on the costumes may be warranted. An article on the awards and nominations already exists at List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race (but strangely is not categorized in the Category:RuPaul's Drag Race tree). But an article which lumps together costumes and subchallenges and competitor behaviour and random trivia like "The main challenge of the ninth season episode "Makeovers: Crew Better Work" tasked contestants with giving makeovers to members of the Drag Race film crew." (why is this specific challenge of one episode in one season worthy of a special mention here? No idea at all) is not workable or useful. Much of this belongs in the main article on the show, and should only be split off if and when a specific subtopic gets much more detailed and would overwhelm the main article. What we have here is not a specific subtopic though, but a bunch of subtopics under a generic title. Fram (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree, I'm moving on. Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is completely a COATRACK. Aside from the article, I’m not sure that the production of Drag Race is a notable topic (this article certainly isn’t evidence that it is), and beyond that I’m very skeptical that the topic wouldn’t be better served as covered on the article for the show. Selective merge. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable as the production specifically has received its own coverage. This show must have consumed at least 500 million US$dollars in production costs over the years - so coverage of the production is not surprising. Of the many possible keep arguments, a great one is that the production itself has won many awards, such at those at List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_RuPaul's_Drag_Race#Primetime_Emmy_Awards. Information about awards for hairstyling, picture editing, casting, and other production topics are not appropriate for typical articles about the content of the show because it is WP:UNDUE. While the articles about the content of the TV show are popular, only a small percentage of readers care about the production. Because there is so much production content from many sources, it makes sense for this to be its own article.
Also, help streamline Wikipedia AfD discussions by increasing access to information about awards, by developing d:Wikidata:WikiProject Award! If the world had better access to data about all the awards ever granted, and which awards were more legitimate, and what exactly the awards mean, and how the recipient qualified for the award, then sorting out the notability of topics would be much easier. Consider editing Wikidata today! Bluerasberry (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many TV shows have won many Emmys and Creative Emmys, and any TV show has many sources about production, but that does not mean the production or the awards won for that are their own separately notable topics, otherwise there'd have to be hundreds of articles about TV production. It's part of the main topic of the show as a whole. How is money spent (and a cable reality show doesn't cost over $2 million per episode) relevant? There can be a lot of content in any article that not everyone cares about, but why would you shove it in another page that maybe people find? E.g. I might not care much about hair and editing, but as a viewer I am interested in the set and challenges! WP:UNDUE is about maintaining a neutral point of view for competing viewpoints and not an issue here. Discussion of integral information about the show is not undue or unbalanced. The Masked Singer (American TV series) does a great job, was that inappropriate to give a FA star when it has whole sections on costumes and filming? The Crown (TV series)#Production won lots of awards and has lots of coverage specifically for production, but that's not basis to split the section even if I find the casting info trivial. Reywas92Talk 00:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That a TV show has won awards for aspects of its production (as expressed in the final product of the TV show) does not at all suggest that the show’s production is an independently notable topic. This argument would allow for “Writing of [title]” for every multi-award-winning book. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is notable is that journalists write about the production industry, generating many reliable sources to cite. It is extraordinarily notable because there is so much journalism and interest in this that there are multiple major awards for this field.
I could be wrong about the US$500 million for ~400 episodes, but at the least, I do not think it is debatable that the low end of production costs must be at least $50 million. The production of the show is also interconnected with a RuPaul Drag Race industry and institution outside of television. Regardless, any money in the tens of millions is an indication of a complex production system which would attract documentation.
The reason why WP:UNDUE applies is because typical readers expect the article about the show to be about the content of the show. If this production content where merged into the main article, then that would be surprising. Wikipedia does not lack space; if we have content on production and it is not appropriate to put it all in one article, then we have capacity for a new article.
We could have articles on the production of books or anything else which gets awards, if of course we had citations. We have citations in this case, but for books and many other awards, we do not. Producing a show takes a crew of 100 to do anything, and almost all of that crew is connected to 100+ year old labor unions, connected to media reporting for nearly as long, and part of media industries in urban centers which churn out mass documentation.
I see that The Masked Singer (American TV series) has a production section in the main article, and that is fine, and it passed WP:FA, so good example. It is also okay for other articles to do other things. In the Masked Singer, the production section has 70 citations and is enough content to be a stand-alone article, especially if there were enough sources and content to expand it. Wikipedia has a lot more content for RuPaul, as can be seen by comparing the 100s of articles in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race to the 15 articles in Category:The Masked Singer (American TV series). There is an order of magnitude more content for RuPaul, so again, it is not surprising that this is based on many more media sources about all facets of the show, and a much bigger, much more attention-grabbing production. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand how production information on a TV show's article would be surprising. It's part of the show and how it's covered. Many films and TV shows have sections on it. The Shining's production is far more notable than RPDR's in terms of secondary coverage, and that's still just a section of the film's article. @Reywas92's examples of The Crown and The Masked Singer are good, as would be Saturday Night Live, the most Emmy-awarded show in history, whose production is on the show's article, not a separate one. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanahary: The factors that make the difference are having enough content for a stand-alone article, having lots of citations to represent different perspectives and facts, and having so much content that merging it all into the main article would unbalance it.
In the case of The Shining, it is already 12,000 words, so by WP:SIZERULE, the article "probably should be divided". If anyone wanted to add more good content to the production section of that article, or even if someone just felt like it right now due to the size, then we could summarize the production in that article and split it into its own article.
Currently we have the Shining production section citing 50 sources, and Saturday Night Live citing 20, and the RuPaul production article cites 112. The trend and bias in Wikipedia is going to be for more media to be available for more recent sources. Saturday Night Live started in the 1970s and the Shining is from 1980, but Wikipedia is mostly citing recent digital sources about them. If we had access to contemporary paper other non-digitized media, then we might have longer production sections for those. With RuPaul's Drag Race, not only is it from a media age with a lot more documentation, but also the media is much more accessible now, and also the show itself is explicitly designed to attract media attention. There just will be more media content with more detail about some topics rather than others. Wikipedia is not a book that fills up. We have the space for any topic which passes WP:N. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is way bigger than necessary because it’s filled with trivia relevant to the topic as well as coatracked content that doesn’t belong. This topic is not independently notable nor so extensive that it should be spun off of the main article. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge with RuPaul's Drag Race. I tend to be in agreement with User: Reywas92. I know that popular British television series often have more than one article in Wikipedia, but they seldom have one solely on their production. I don't know what's so special about this series to make it an exception. YTKJ (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Race is among shows with the most Emmy Award wins in television history. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zero of the other 29 shows on this list have a separate page for production, though many have nice sections in the main articles about it, so not sure what the point is here. It's unnecessary to split this way. Reywas92Talk 23:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This may be an argument for a list of awards won by RPDR, but it does not imply notability of the show’s production (however defined, which this article does not make clear). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge : with the article about the show itself. This isn't so much about production of the show, it appears to be another attempt a writing an article about the show. Oaktree b (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't disagree more. All of the information is specifically related to the show's production and none of the text is an attempt at rewriting the parent article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just more fluff around the show, we haven't really seen why this production is notable. Or why the process of making the show is notable. Why is this particular TV show so different than any other one being made, or that was made in the past? Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge with the article of the show itself, and other sections with their appropriate articles. It makes more sense for the cosmetics and hair section to be included in the biographies of those involved, such as Mathu Andersen and Raven (drag queen), and many of the sections are short and don't signify their significance. In addition, I'm not sure how the 'Hosting and judging' section pertains to production, since it only lists that it has won several awards.Alexthegod5 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge with the main article of the show mostly and some can be merged to List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul's Drag Race. It doesn't make sense to write some of these sentences out in prose when they are more easily understood in a table. I would also delete 1/3 to 1/2 of this article as fan cruft. Moritoriko (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry E. Squire

Harry E. Squire (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 cinematographer who worked on notable movies,WP:NOTINHERIT themoon@talk:~$ 14:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cineramaadventure article is definitely about him but is not independent [3]. The Evening Independent article has multiple mentions and it still available [4]. The New York Times article appears to be about him "THE man behind the Cincrama camera, Harry Squire, is a stocky, gray-haired, ruddy-faced, bouncy Irishman in his sixties." and is still available [5]. The book source is still available [6], well over 100 libraries, but like the first has independence issues and I didn't find any mentions of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a WP:BEFORE and the subject does appear in a couple of books. Not sure these mentions are enough to meet WP:GNG. If kept, the article needs a complete rewrite.Variety312 (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NY Times article looks like it covers him. Gover, Raymond L. (25 August 1955), "Flint Is in Next Cinerama", The Flint Journal has many paragraphs about him. "Area Man Among 'Oscar' Nominees", The Troy Record, 17 February 1956 is an article about him being nominated for an Oscar for Cinerama Holiday. This says he was also nominated for Seven Wonders of the World. Not that much coverage but worth including The World's News (Gover says he filmed "the man actually firing the shot"). Articles like Sennwald, Andre (25 January 1936), "Movie Reviews", Times Colonist and Desfor, Irving (23 October 1952), "Cinerama Adds New Dimension To Movie Film", The Wichita Eagle and Desfor, Irving (4 June 1957), ""Seven Wonders of the World"-Premiere Tomorrow Evening - 8:30", Los Angeles Evening Citizen News directly reference his work on productions attesting to his role in co-creating notable works. As does this headline. Many books hits with only snippet views like this. (Side note, photo seen in the page appeared in the Daily News 25 March 1956 and was taken during the production of Seven Wonders of the World.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Added 2 newspaper sources and a simple Google Books search brings up his name in many books. A search on newspaperarchives.com also brings up Harry Squire in multiple newspapers over the years. Should be accessible via the Wikipedia Library or public libraries with digital subscriptions. An article in the *Alamogordo Daily News* (August 14, 1955) wrote that he was "reportedly one of the top motion picture cameramen in the world". Pychess (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC) – Pychess[reply]
  • Keep. The strongest sources look to be New York Times and Popular Mechanics which both have sections focusing on him and not mere mentions. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eliana González

Eliana González (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 have significant news coverage and fails WP:TENNIS. RolandSimon (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment She was getting news coverage literally just last year for going on her third Olympic run (which isn't currently mentioned in the article, by the way). What news search did you make if this first page of Google results didn't show up for you? SilverserenC 06:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably the same as mine. Using the above "find sources" without using any tricks that I have up my sleeve and usually employ, I get an actor, someone in Colombia, someone from Argentina, and accounts with this name on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, and SoundCloud. Welcome to Google Web search! ☺ Google News has several people with the wrong name, someone who stabbed someone, and the actor again. Bing News has a volleyball player. Google Books has a member of FARC and someone who thought that this was a good pseudonym choice for an account of a torture victim. Search results are not identical for different people. The full name certainly helps, but the article creator didn't put it in the article. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean, it's a common name, sure. That's why a search shouldn't be done with just someone's name, but also the subject they're relevant to. In this case, table tennis. And since this is a Peruvian player, one should be using Spanish, hence "tenis de mesa". Use that with just her regular name above, not even needing the full name, and you'll get plenty of news hits. Now, as for whether there's also coverage from her events back in the 90's, that's going to require a deeper dive into Spanish language sources. SilverserenC 21:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, Tennis, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 07:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage about this athlete that I can find. Gnewspapers has several hits on the name, but it's common enough that you get stories about a variety of people. The one source now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some sources and info to the article, about wins at the 2023 Pan American Masters Table Tennis Championships and competing in the 2024 ITTF Americas Qualification Event. I agree that someone who competed in two Olympic games in the pre-internet era would have had sufficient coverage at the time. If anyone is aware of digitised Latin American newspapers and magazines, please let me know. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Persuaded by RebeccaGreen. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1995 United States elections

1995 United States elections (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)

Copy/Pasted from other articles without proper attribution. Mostly unreferenced. Editor refuses to communicate and has repeatedly reverted the redirect which this article previously had, saying to send it to AFD instead. Well, here we are... Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I am the creator of this article - the nominator decided not to ping me perhaps because they didn't want my input. There are dozens of year articles for American elections, many of which are also off-year election years. They serve a mostly navigational purpose, as far as I can tell. I know the formatting isn't like the other year articles, but that is an issue which can be fixed with editing and not a fundamental flaw. I could understand if it was something like, I don't know, a couple of ward elections, but there were multiple gubernatorial races and a few House seats on this year. The mayoral list is also not complete -- there were more elections that year than are listed in the article. Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got an AfD notification on your talk page. Complaining about not also getting a ping is contemptibly precious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this doesn't address the substance of what I said and hones in on a single off-hand sentence I wrote. I can't be "Here, There, and Everywhere"... Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not my fault that you distracted readers from the substance of your own post by opening it with a really dumb "off-hand" complaint. For whatever reason, you seem bent on self-sabotage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After complaints, I have substantially rewritten the article, including attribution and sources where necessary. Any potential copyright violations can be revdeleted. I will leave it to participants in this discussion as to whether my changes are considered "substantial" enough or not. And FYI, TNT is an essay and not a policy; I could cite WP:TNTTNT and it would have the same weight. Billclinton1996 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing, nobody implied TNT is a policy. But keep digging that hole. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that anyone believed it was. I just think it's an important thing to note. I'm not very good at digging, unfortunately. Billclinton1996 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User has since been blocked as a sockpuppet by User:NinjaRobotPirate. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can this article be speedy deleted per G5? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. While some of the Keeps lack P&G substance, there is no support for deletion. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Killah (song)

Killah (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, as it is not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label ... Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I don’t want to let personal biases present as a fan of Prince, Bowie and Gaga but this song is a highlight of the album and has received major media coverage as justified by the aforementioned SNL performance. All of the work gone into creating the article should be a major reason as to why the article shouldn’t be deleted. This is a song made by one of the most significant artists of the 21st century and therefore even though it is not a single it should remain as an article as this will likely be one of the most popular albums released in 2025. McCrystallJ2003 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your passion, and the Michael Jackson song on your userpage is one of my favorites, but work gone into creating the article and it being a song made by one of the most significant artists of the 21st century are not reasons to keep the song according to Wikipedia's policy. What matters is WP:NOTABILITY, as demonstrated in reliable, in-depth, secondary coverage. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : the song was performed on snl and has had enough coverage there. "imperfect for you" by ariana grande has an article for the same reason. it is also on the charts Pxlpixx (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Watch this video of last night’s SNL performance” is completely trivial coverage. Imperfect For You is nominated for deletion, and in any case WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn’t matter—the notability guidelines do (and they don’t care that the song is charting). ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: WP:NSONGS states that triviality is defined as such:
"Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable.
Whether you personally like the content of the articles is of no importance. If you find the way Billboard, Pitchfork, Rolling Stone, NME and Paper Magazine have reported about the SNL performance and/or the song itself to not be in-depth enough, too trivial as you might want to say, take it up with the journalists. They're within the scope of what the guidelines require.
ALL of these articles are also not within the context of a general album reviews as well.
WP:NSONGS also states this:
Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.
  1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
Chart performance IS an indicator of notability, saying it doesn't matter at all is just straight up a lie. I've watched deletion discussions for song articles for two decades now, and charting on at least one single major chart has almost always tipped the pendulum towards keeping articles. This not about WP:OTHERSTUFF, this is about how this community in GENERAL tries to ensure consistency in making decisions.
The song has independantly been reported about by several reputable (non-trivial) music magazines and has charted in multiple major charts. It's a very obvious keep. — Amenvodka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That "non-trivial" excludes unreliable sources does not mean that anything published by a reliable source is non-trivial. "Watch last night's SNL performance" is not WP:SIGCOV. Reread: Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. It is the sourcing that matters. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are articles about the SNL performance of this song in Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Billboard, and Variety, which is reasonable enough coverage by my standards. My guess is that if we delete this, we will recreate it within two months. Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's clear that those sources wouldn't demonstrate notability for the very performance they're reporting on—that is, to write an article about the SNL performance in question—, even though it was reported on in the form of short "this is happening soon!" and "this happened last night!" articles. I don't see how they can go to demonstrate the notability of one of the songs performed. This would mean that almost any song ever performed on SNL is guaranteed notability, because they always receive that sort of trivial coverage to announce and share the video of the performance. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, it'll be back here in a month. It's the standout banger on the album, so Gaga is almost certainly going to release it as a single. If it doesn't happen, delete it then. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Over 100,000 edits and your keep rationale is that it's the standout banger on the album. I hope the closer reads these votes.
    For the record, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL apply. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even admins are allowed opinions. My keep rationale is what I said before: the articles constitute notability. You disagree with the five people so far who voted "Keep," and that's expected, because you nominated it for deletion. You don't need to attack folks just because they disagree. Regardless, your edit history is also impeccable, and your good faith nomination should be considered. Maybe other users will find the piece non-notable. Mike Selinker (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, admin or not, If it [Killah being released as a single] doesn't happen, delete it then [in a month or so] is not a compatible argument with the articles constitute notability—besides being incompatible with notability policy. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just frustrated by the open flouting of notability policy, especially by long-time editors. Interpreting those sources as non-trivial is fair and reasonable (though I strongly disagree), but wanting to keep this article because the song is great and it'll probably become a single is just against consensus on notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You've made your point, over and over. Other people can read things differently than you. Maybe just let them speak and see what happens? Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think a fork from the album article is appropriate given chart positions, coverage, and amount of content here. I'd prefer to see this article expanded and improved, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song has charted in multiple countries and received independent coverage from Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, NME, and Billboard. Meets WP:NSONG.--CHr0m4tiko0 (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kuckuckskind

Kuckuckskind (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)

Unlike Wiktionary, Wikipedia (English) does not generally include foreign-language words, and none of the article's citations is actually dispositive on the question whether—or even supportive of the idea that—this word has any currency in English:

  • [7] is a news report that mentions what the German word is, and it reports the word as German, while also mentioning, by way of explanation, an equivalent British term.
  • [8] only asserts that the German word was untranslatable (which is somewhat contradicted by the existence of the equivalent British expression).
  • [9] does not mention the German word at all.
  • The other, thrice-cited print source is German. (I do have the sneaking suspicion the article's creation might have had something to do with the publication of that book, but I have absolutely zero evidence for that hunch, nor have I even tried to search for any. If somebody wants to look into this – it's a thought. It may not be worth it though; IMHO there's already ample reason for deletion, and I generally hate Deletionism and tend to favour inclusion.)

Also, the German word is not in OED. A Wiktionary entry does exist, but it only recognises the word as German. Besides Wiktionary, I have not seen any English-language dictionaries that include this term. I have not looked very hard, but I have not been able to google any evidence this word is in any way a thing in English or in the English-speaking world. Multiple pages on cuckoldry already exist, as do several words for the children produced thereby, from the pejorative bastard to the fanciful love child – these besides the perhaps more British than American milkman's child. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, insofar as we've effectively been asked to raise and nurture the foreign article slipped in here in 2023, I feel we've been cucked. It sounds a bit wrong, but there's a solution for that. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally incredulous at that Swabian whatever being a thing in English. So basically, that's what they say for a measure of a cunt hair, but it's also somehow less coarse? It seems VERY hard to pronounce (unless you're Swabian, I suppose).
Then again, I generally oppose arguments from (personal) incredulity, so as you were. Haha. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary. It also duplicates related articles such as paternity fraud with a distinctly non-NPOV flavour to this one including information that is almost certainly inaccurate in most or all countries. e.g "In case of kuckuckskind, there is no legal relationship between the child and its apparent (social) father."Slp1 (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and WP:FORK. This is maybe three words more than a technical dictionary definition. This is really just a fork using a foreign word. Bearian (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fournier

Andrew Fournier (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 hockey player for which significant coverage does not exist. His six games in the AHL and 30 in the EIHL are the highest level he has ever played. I could not find coverage of his professional career beyond basic stats. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above and WP:COOKIE, even though I'm not a sporting enthusiast. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Alam

AfDs for this article:
Mahmood Alam (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:NPOL. Has not been elected. WP:BEFORE search made slightly more difficult given this is a common name, but nothing found beyond their social media and election stats. Almost all cited statements fail verification. Previously deleted a couple of months ago, but as a non-admin I can't check if it is G4able. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basu Gautam

Basu Gautam (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)

Lacks Notability. Fails GNG. 4 out of 2 sources are written by subject himself ( can’t be used for notability). One is press release and another one is a blog written by his friend. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to respectfully clarify a few points and highlight the efforts already made to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG).
    I have invested significant time and effort researching and compiling information about Basu Gautam, and I understand the importance of maintaining Wikipedia’s standards. While it is true that some of the initial sources include self-authored content and a press release, these were added to provide context rather than to establish notability.
    However, I want to emphasize that my work did not stop there. I have actively sought and included additional sources, and I am in the process of further expanding the references with reliable, independent, secondary sources that offer significant coverage. These sources aim to address the notability concerns directly.
    I deeply value Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability, and I am fully open to constructive suggestions for improvement. If you are aware of specific independent sources or ways to enhance the article's compliance with GNG, I welcome your input.
    Please note that I am committed to improving this article and ensuring it aligns with Wikipedia’s content policies. I kindly request time to make these updates, as I believe the subject has contributed in ways that merit encyclopedic recognition.Please revisit page again GlobalEmpathy (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD discussion isn't intended to evaluate whether the article is currently good enough -- just whether it is possible to find multiple independent reliable sources that significantly cover the article subject (whether they exist at all), regardless of the subject's importance. Essentially for the article to be kept it needs to be shown that there are reliable sources describing the subject in some detail, or that they can be assumed to exist (mostly the former). If you're planning to find better sources later you could also propose it be draftified (moved to Draft:Basu Gautam), where it can be worked on without having to be in the main article space. See the policy on suitability for inclusion for details. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination for deletion should be reconsidered as Basu Gautam meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through substantial independent, reliable, and verifiable sources that significantly cover his contributions. Below is a comprehensive breakdown of why the article should be retained:
    ----
    1. Multiple Independent Reliable Sources Establish Notability
    The subject has been extensively covered by reputable third-party sources, including:
    ✅ Kathmandu Post – A widely respected publication featuring his views on sustainable tourism and peacebuilding.
    ✅ OnlineKhabar – A major Nepali news platform discussing his work on sustainable development.
    ✅ Gorkhapatra – A national newspaper reporting on his environmental initiatives.
    ✅ Annapurna Post – A well-known news source covering the activities of the Lumbini World Peace Forum.
    ✅ MyRepublica – Documenting his leadership in international peace conferences.
    These sources are independent and non-affiliated with Gautam, ensuring an objective validation of his impact.
    ----
    2. Proven Impact in Peace and Environmental Advocacy
    Basu Gautam is not just a passive contributor to social causes; he is a recognized leader in:
    🌍 Lumbini World Peace Forum – A global platform fostering peace and cross-cultural dialogue.
    🌱 One Million Trees Plantation Drive – A large-scale afforestation project addressing climate change.
    Both initiatives have been widely covered by media outlets, showcasing their real-world significance beyond mere self-promotion.
    ----
    3. Recognized by Governments and International Bodies
    A critical aspect of Wikipedia’s notability criteria is recognition by credible institutions. Gautam has received:
    🏆 Peace Ambassador Title – Bestowed by Sarno Municipality, Italy, covered in international media.
    🏆 Youth Inspiration Award 2018 – Awarded by Global Youth Parliament.
    🏆 Youth Icon Award – Conferred by Global Law Thinkers Society, Bangladesh.
    Such distinctions aren’t self-attributed but come from respected external bodies, reinforcing global credibility.
    ----
    4. Meets Wikipedia’s Inclusion Criteria
    As per Wikipedia:Notability (People) guidelines, the subject qualifies because:
    ✅ Significant Media Coverage – Multiple news sources provide independent, in-depth discussions.
    ✅ Sustained Contributions – His work spans decades in education, peacebuilding, and environmental activism.
    ✅ International Recognition – Honors from governments and institutions further validate his standing.
    Since multiple reliable sources exist, Gautam’s notability is well-established, negating any claim that the article lacks merit.
    ----
    5. No Justification for Draftification or Deletion
    The argument for deletion is misplaced, as:
    ❌ The article is not promotional—it is well-sourced and fact-based.
    ❌ There is no lack of independent coverage—reputable sources substantiate his achievements.
    ❌ Draftification is unnecessary, as the article already meets inclusion standards.
    If minor improvements are needed, editing and refinement are better solutions than removal.
    ----
    Conclusion: The Article Should Be Kept
    Basu Gautam is a nationally and internationally recognized figure in peace and environmental activism. His notability is well-documented through independent sources, governmental recognition, and sustained contributions.
    🔹 Instead of deletion or draftification, minor improvements can be made, but the subject’s notability is unquestionable.
    Thus, this AfD should be closed as KEEP. GlobalEmpathy (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, provide sources to show that they meet the criteria. These wall of texts are not convincing. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 14:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback regarding the notability concerns. We understand the importance of meeting Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (GNG) and the need for reliable, independent secondary sources to establish the subject’s significance.
    We respectfully want to clarify that extensive work has gone into sourcing and verifying information. In total, 23 references have been provided on the page, and a substantial portion of these are from reliable, independent sources, not authored by the subject or affiliated individuals.
    While earlier versions may have relied on primary materials such as blogs or press releases, these have been largely replaced or supplemented with third-party coverage. We kindly request a review of the references currently cited on the page, which include recognized media outlets, news articles, and other independent publications. With Kindest Regards, Global Empathy
    For your reference, the article in question is available here:
    👉 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basu_Gautam GlobalEmpathy (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Environment. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. English-language references are either authored by Gautam, connected to Gautam Lumbini World Peace Forum (of which Gautam is president [10]), or only have trivial coverage.
I also machine-translated the non-English references:
  • A machine translation of [11] includes "Rise Media Network is the media partner in the One Million Tree Plantation and Conservation Campaign", indicating this article is not independent.
  • [12] [13] [14] are written by Gautam
  • [15] has only a trivial mention of Gautam
  • [16] [17] [18] don't appear to be written by Gautam, but their similar content and puff-piece tone implies they are just press releases.
I could find no additional reliable, independent sources. userdude 20:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notability Justification for Wikipedia Approval: Basu Gautam
Basu Gautam is a Nepalese peace advocate, environmentalist, and founder of the Lumbini World Peace Forum (LWPF). His work in promoting nuclear disarmament, sustainability, and interfaith dialogue has garnered attention in both national and international media. Below is a summary of independent coverage establishing his notability per Wikipedia's guidelines:
----
Independent Coverage in Reliable Sources:
1. The Annapurna Express (Nepal’s leading English-language weekly)
2. MyRepublica (Nepal’s major national daily)
3. The Kathmandu Post (Nepal’s most respected English daily)
4. OnlineKhabar (Leading digital news platform)
5. Rising Nepal Daily (Government-run English daily)
6. International Recognition
  • [9] DentroSalerno (Italy) – Covers Gautam’s international peace exhibition in Italy, showing cross-border influence.
  • [10] VetoGate (Arabic) – Highlights his involvement in international peace dialogue, indicating media attention in the Arab world.
----
Additional Media Presence (Supporting Sources)
  • Global Law Thinkers Society – Mentions Gautam’s regional environmental leadership.
  • [Personal Essays/Columns] – Gautam has written for reputable outlets like OnlineKhabar and MyRepublica, showing thought leadership.
----
Nepali Language Coverage (Machine Translated Highlights)
  • Annapurna Post, eLumbiniKhabar, MeroLifestyle, Hamrakura – These articles consistently document Basu Gautam’s campaigns, awards, and peacebuilding efforts, indicating sustained and significant coverage in domestic media.
----
Conclusion
Basu Gautam has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, both nationally and internationally. His work has been recognized in English, Nepali, Italian, and Arabic-language media, demonstrating broad impact and sustained relevance in peace and environmental activism.
Therefore, Basu Gautam meets the notability requirements for a standalone Wikipedia article, per Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (GNG), having substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. GlobalEmpathy (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Independent Coverage and Recognition:
  • Nepalese: He is the son of Dr. Balaram Gautam, former mayor of Siddharthanagar Municipality, and Sita Gautam. Source: Naya Bishwo
  • Nepalese: He has engaged with international peace leaders, including Nobel Peace Laureate Mr. Kailash Satyarthi. Source: OnlineKhabar
  • English: He was invited as a notable speaker by the Embassy of India, Kathmandu, and delivered a presentation titled "Shanti Niketan: Tagore's Idea on Education" at an event celebrating Rabindranath Tagore’s 161st Birth Anniversary, part of INDIA@75 Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. Source: Embassy of India, Kathmandu
GlobalEmpathy (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Basu Gautam doesn’t show enough notability per WP:BIO. I did a WP:BEFORE search and found barely any coverage, just a passing mention tied to Jyoti Basu, nothing significant or independent. Without solid, reliable sources showing real impact, it fails WP:GNG too. Not worth keeping. NXcrypto Message 06:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Delete It sure seems like this fellow should be notable but the sources here do not meet the criteria. Of the English language sources they are either 1) by him (not independent) 2) mention him (not significant) or 3) his author bio page (not independent). Not one supports GNG. At least one (the one in Italian) didn't even mention him, nor did the one stating who his father is (unless the translation dropped that information). I highly recommend stopping with the wall of text here, but also please stop including sources that we have already pointed out do not meet WP's WP:Reliable_sources. At this point you are wasting peoples' time, and I, for one, resent that. Lamona (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Thank you for your detailed feedback. I appreciate the emphasis on upholding WP:GNG and WP:RS, and I would like to clarify the reasoning behind the sources I provided, using all relevant links. This is my final argument, and if it is deemed insufficient, I accept that the page may be deleted.
    1. Italian News Source (Independent Coverage)
    In this Italian news article, the individual is mentioned as the representative of Lumbini World Peace Forum, a non-profit based in Kathmandu, Nepal. His photograph is published alongside the article. This constitutes independent, in-person coverage of participation in a public event, which supports notability beyond a mere mention.
    2. Regarding His Father – Former Mayor of Siddharth Nagar
    In OPED on Medium, OPED briefly mention that his father is an ex-Mayor of Siddharth Nagar.
    Nepalese news sources have covered this fact independently. Here is one such source:
    • Nepalese News Article – This article references his background, including his father's role as ex-Mayor, and provides independent confirmation.
    I apologize for using the reference after the sentence. The Nepalese news source should have been placed directly after his father’s name for proper attribution.
    3. Meeting with Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi (Significant, Independent Coverage)
    According to Nepali news, the individual met and had breakfast with Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Kailash Satyarthi, which was covered independently:
    • Nepalese News Coverage – This article documents the meeting and includes photos, offering significant coverage and an association with a globally recognized figure.
    4. Use of English Writing
    I referenced his English-language OPED solely to establish that he is a Nepalese author. I fully acknowledge that this source is not independent and does not count toward GNG. It was cited only for authorship context, not for demonstrating notability.
    Conclusion:
    I understand that not all sources meet WP’s reliability or notability criteria. However, the Italian news coverage with a photo, Nepalese media coverage of the meeting with Kailash Satyarthi, and independent verification of his father's political role were intended to support his notability under WP:GNG.
    I respect the consensus process and did not intend to waste anyone’s time. If this clarification is still not enough for establishing notability, I fully accept the outcome.
    Thank you again for your time and for upholding Wikipedia’s standards. GlobalEmpathy (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but there is not even the appearance of passing any of the WP:PROF notability criteria, and userdude's careful source analysis convinces me that we also do not have WP:GNG-based notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUDGEON
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Thank you for your thoughtful review and for highlighting the criteria under WP:PROF and WP:GNG. I understand the concerns regarding the lack of academic notability under WP:PROF, and I acknowledge that the individual in question may not meet those specific benchmarks.
    However, my intention was to present notability based not on academic credentials, but on public engagement and independent coverage. Specifically:
    1. Public Role: He has been independently covered in international media as a representative of Lumbini World Peace Forum (Italian source: link, with photograph: https://www.dentrosalerno.it/2024/12/27/sarno-inaugurata-mostra-images-of-peace/).
    2. Notable Associations: He was publicly acknowledged in Nepali media for a meeting with Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi, which may indicate notability through significant association (Nepali news link:https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2015/03/258614 ).
    3. Verifiable Public Role: Independent sources confirm that his father, Dr. Balaram Gautam, is a former Mayor of Siddharthanagar Municipality, and I now have the correct independent reference to support this (Nepali news link:https://www.nayabishwo.com/2019/07/09/44180).
    I accept that notability through WP:GNG is ultimately community-determined, and I appreciate the careful source analysis by userdude and others. This is my final clarification, and if consensus leans toward deletion, I respect that decision.
    Thank you again for your time and fair review. GlobalEmpathy (talk) 05:58, 23 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. Consensus is to keep; a merger may be proposed at WP:PM. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Paz F.C. (Colombia)

La Paz F.C. (Colombia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does it really meet the criteria for notability? It's an amateur football club and there are no recent news about it. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can any of the "keep" supporters identify the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Das osmnezz, this article needs improvement, not deletion. The notable sources include The Guardian and Al Jazeera. There's enough WP:SIGCOV to meet at least WP:BASIC.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, The Guardian is just a pointer, had people only looked. There's a paragraph that can serve to expand the article in Watson 2022, p. 239. There's other information, helpfully itself built from news coverage, in Wells 2022, pp. 148–149. ISBN 9781509854257 p. 121 is a glancing mention, but is the sort of source that could be used for an introduction. (Unfortunately, the Alberto Lati book that has more is not, as Ediciones Plan B is a self-publishing outfit. For goodness' sakes, Alberto!) In Boniface 2018, p. 57 is found the fact that this was three teams in one club: men's, women's, and under 20s. I didn't look much further, because then I reached Rodríguez López & Estupiñán Osorio 2022, which is over 40 pages on this subject and must be good for at least another paragraph, not least on the mixed reception to the idea. Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Watson, Peter J. (2022). "Conclusion: #OneCountryOnAPitch". Football and Nation Building in Colombia (2010–2018): The Only Thing That Unites Us. Liverpool Latin American Studies. Liverpool University Press. pp. 225–240. doi:10.2307/j.ctv2nnv514.12. ISBN 9781802070927. JSTOR j.ctv2nnv514.12.
    • Wells, Audrey (2022). "Forgiveness After Civil War: Yogislavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Colombia, and South Sudan". The Importance of Forgiveness and the Futility of Revenge: Case Studies in Contemporary International Politics. Contributions to International Relations. Springer Nature. ISBN 9783030875527.
    • Boniface, Pascal (2018). L'Empire Foot: Comment le ballon rond a conquis le monde (in French). Armand Colin. ISBN 9782200623135.
    • Rodríguez López, Julián David; Estupiñán Osorio, Juan Diego (2022-09-19). La Paz F. C.: Un equipo que sirve como canal para la reconstrucción social en Colombia (comunicadores sociale thesis) (in Spanish). Universidad Santo Tomás. hdl:11634/47238.
  • I don't like the relist comment as the sources are already in the article. The problem with this particular article is the club appears to be either a Colombian non-league team, or even a non league team in the sense they aren't even in a league. I'm not sure if that would mean they have to meet NCORP as an organisation or not? Still there is plenty of coverage, even if the article itself is a wee stub. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the sources on the topic, I think the article could be improved by describing the social impact it has on Colombia's peace process as the sources describe; in that case, I feel it could indeed be relevant and be an independent article. Still, I think the better option would be for it to be a section in the Colombian peace process article rather than an independent article. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addite Malik

Addite Malik (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 actress is notable, but the sources included in it do not pass WP:GNG. The attached sources are mentions in news about COVID, birthdays, wedding anniversaries, and restaurants. AShiv1212 (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Hellboy comics. ✗plicit 13:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense

Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a lengthy plot summary and a neatly organized list of appearances in media. No reception/analysis. Publication history could be merged to List of Hellboy comics, since it is arguably better formatted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article is a candidate for deletion, but it does need to be refocus. It shouldn't be about the fictional organisation in the comics, but rather about the 140+ issue comics series, B.P.R.D. Hellboybookeeper (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but we still need sources to establish that series notability (reviews/analysis of or awards to the series as a whole). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given no comments, I'll ping folks who took part in the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hellboy Universe: @Shooterwalker @Pokelego999 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇan Svāmīji

Śrī Rāmakṛṣṇan Svāmīji (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:NBASIC. C F A 11:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qezeljeh, Ahar

Qezeljeh, Ahar (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 whatsoever. This article basically just says "this exists" without further clarification. Sources just state the administrative division of the place and the location, not much more JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 06:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. I'm unable to find any credible source. Ʀasteem Talk 08:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking up the Anglicizations was a nightmare, produced at least one Anglicization that we did not have which in turn had a lot of false positives, and only yielded prose-free gazetteers with map coördinates, several different ones. Looking up the Persian name showed promise at one point, until it turned out to be a place in Iraq. This is a permanent substub, sourced to a dead spreadsheet, about which we can barely write verifiable prose at all. Uncle G (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Openstreetmap takes you directly to a small town at the end of a road which shares a Persian name with the Persian link for Qezeljeh. If we can locate that census, this would pass WP:NGEO. SportingFlyer T·C 03:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I can only verify this to Google Maps and Openstreetmap, but there is clearly a populated place at the point on the map using satellite photos. Google seems to think it's Anglicanized to Qezelje when you click on the addresses of one of the gardens in the photo. Still needs more work, though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 07:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Moldova at the 1996 Summer Olympics#Swimming. Goldsztajn (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Elezarov

Artur Elezarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The added sources are just database listings and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fred Olen Ray#Television. I see consensus against keeping this as a standalone article, and the redirect as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 22:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzeena, Queen of Kong Island

Tarzeena, Queen of Kong Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my WP:BEFORE all I found was either database entries and reviews on blogs (mainly wordpress). The same, seemingly, goes for the sources in the .de version of the article. I therefore don't believe that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Moore (piper)

John Moore (piper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SUBNOT. There is no indication from the article that this person is notable. Aneirinn (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. What would be the benefit to anyone in deleting this information? He was noted in an apparently legitimate book about famous pipers, so is notable. Station1 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What benefit does it provide in its current state? There is no notion of any notability in the article. This person being mentioned in only one "apparently legitimate book about famous pipers" does not establish grounds for notability. See WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit is the diffusion of knowledge, same as any article on WP. That's our goal. Now, I'm not particularly interested in 19th century Irish pipers myself, but if just one person in the next 20 years is, this article is worthwhile. It's not a hoax, it's not a lie, it's not promotional, it's not taking up valuable disk space, so there's a good reason to keep it but no good reason to remove it. If we do remove it, the knowledge will still be out there in the book, just harder to find. Station1 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, Ireland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have exactly one source, which is indeed an on-point biography. But there appears to be no supporting sourcing available from anywhere else, at least that I can find; certainly none are being proffered in the article. The notability threshold that it is easy to exceed with truly notable historical figures is multiple sources. That way details can be cross-checked, and gaps can be filled. I am awash with search matches to things that contain lots of people named John, Moore, and Piper in some way. But all attempts to trim the noise in various ways have revealed nothing at all. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The indication that he's notable come from the fact he had a biography written about him by a notable academic nearly twenty years after his death; the average musician that passes the GNG isn't going to get that. There's most likely going to be offline sourcing, but given how common the subject's name is... good luck finding it. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A single 400-word biographical summary (in a directory-style work seemingly covering almost every professional piper of the era) doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. As with other contributors to this AfD, I can find no other substantial sources. (This piece on galwaysown.ie is a passing mention which seems to be based on either this Wikipedia article and/or the earlier O'Neill source. Book and journal searches only returns other versions of the 1913 O'Neill source). Per WP:NRV, notability is based on the verifiable existence of significant coverage in multiple independent sources - not merely that there might/could be other sources (that exist only in potentia...). If this were a modern professional musician, who was covered in 400 words in a single source, we wouldn't even be talking about it.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Besides being a "piper of good repute" we have nothing else that talks about this person. We don't even know most of their life, where they were born. Travelled on a boat, went home and died at sea, is about the extent of the article. Zero claim at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, completely non-notable. Creator created 2,107 pages of which 140 (6.6%) have been deleted so far. Mztourist (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG, as one mention in a directory does not establish notability. Longhornsg (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from the one source in the article, I can find only mentions of his name as the Irish piper in The Ivy Leaf. If anything is notable, I think it would be that play, or W.H. Powers company, which produced and toured The Ivy Leaf and The Fairy's Well across the US in the 1880s and 90s, and in which notable performers like Carroll Johnson and Patsy Touhey appeared (Touhey in the same role that Moore had briefly appeared in). If an article about The Ivy Leaf existed, that could be a reasonable redirect, but it doesn't, yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Wake Forest University. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Forest Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Wake Forest Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (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 evidence of independent notability are provided in the article or readily found ElKevbo (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman Yunusovich Kuchukov

Suleiman Yunusovich Kuchukov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article. Subject has no credible claim of notability. Low rank, lowly decorations, undistinguished service in World War I and the Russian Civil War. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge? The latter requires attribution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: After taking a close look at the article on Suleiman Yunusovich Kuchukov, I don’t think it holds up to WP:GNG standards for WP:NSOLDIER. I went digging for more information with a WP:BEFORE search, but all I came across were brief, routine mentions in military records nothing substantial or detailed enough to show he had a lasting impact or recognition worth noting. Without stronger sources to back it up, the article just doesn’t meet WP:BIO for standing on its own. I’d suggest folding his details into something like the Hero of the Soviet Union instead, where it’d fit more naturally without needing a full page. NXcrypto Message 06:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Guardian Tiger IV

Operation Guardian Tiger IV (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)

Insignificant 1-2 day WP:ROUTINE operations, one of thousands of non-notable military operations. Almost 20 years later, no WP:SIGCOV indicating a failure of WP:LASTING. Only coverage may be simple listings of the operations in directories or from sources published by the U.S. military that are not thus independent, and not qualifying WP:RS to establish WP:GNG.

Also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Longhornsg (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Swimming at the 1984 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metre butterfly. ✗plicit 03:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Marzouk

Faisal Marzouk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The one source added, although looks impressive is just a very small 1 line mention in a long list of فيصل مرزوق and definitely not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_March_17
No tags for this post.