Aja viide. Aja lugu.

< March 19	March 21 >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

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

Disambig page whose only entries are non-existent articles. Fails WP:DABRED. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. all entries may have no articles, but are mentioned at the linked articles. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:28, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like the page should probably be a soft redirect to Wiktionary and/or wikiquote. Doesn't appear to have any bluelinks so as far as I can see is just a collection of non-notable things and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. JMWt (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- every single one of these entries has an article on the author or album, where their work in general is discussed. This is a useful navigational aid. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not useful when the page literally goes nowhere. MOS:DABNOENTRY also applies for DABs. – The Grid (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since this was nominated, This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things (Taylor Swift song) has been converted from a redirect to an article. But anyway, this disambiguation page is a useful list of articles all of which contain the term in a correct context. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's a questionable revert from what was originally a redirect. If that song has charted, I can see the article staying regardless of being a stub. – The Grid (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each entry is mentioned on the respective articles, passing MOS:DABMENTION. ObserveOwl (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION, as it seems like a helpful dab for a search. I was surprised that so many works had this name. --Mojo Hand (talk) 23:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes MOS:DABMENTION. Chekidalum (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per MOS:DABMENTION. A Google search for "This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things" brought me to this disambiguation page and that's when I saw the AfD notice. As a reader, this page gave me the info I was searching for. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Subic Broadcasting Corporation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXXM

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

Another Philippines radio station whose history and existence are only cited to government documents with no other sourcing provided that clearly fails the WP:GNG. Maybe redirect to Subic Broadcasting Corporation, but they also lease out the station to someone else. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to make a comment and sound a bit like a broken record in the process. For just shy of four years at various AfD nominations, I have pleaded with Philippines radio and TV topic area editors to up their game, asking for their three best sources, pleading with them to read the room and add more references, begging for higher source quality, hoping they will wait for a TV station to become notable before writing an article on it, and so on, and all my pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Again, I exhort the people who work on these pages to get serious about either improving the quality of the sourcing in these articles or developing a plan to cull them when they can't meet the GNG. I understand and sympathize with the problems about source availability and even reliability, particularly for pre-internet topics. But what we have now will not fly on this project, and the fact that new pages continue to be hurtled into the sun with not even the slightest sense that something has changed is concerning. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subic Broadcasting Corporation – There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in reliable sources, but DXXM is very briefly included in the other article, so a redirect might be helpful. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The suggested redirect target seems to have problematic sources as well. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just added a source to the redirect target, but it’s rather trivial coverage, so Lenticel's point still stands PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. I just spent 29 days in the Philippines, and I was able to use their version of Google easily, even with spotty Wifi. I know the good folks are busy and hardworking and when they're not working they're hosting family reunions, but in agreement with Sammi Brie, editors with specific interests need to up their game. Bearian (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Clearly fails GNG. Sources are mostly primary or trivial. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subic Broadcasting Corporation. It said that DXXM is a call sign for "Lite FM Carmen" whatever it is, and this is unref/unverifiable either, but I did find a source about DXXM for it and fixed the content. --Altenmann >talk 05:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being silly, I'm addressing my own personal experience with researching Philippines sources, which tend to be hidden from Google. I discovered this when writing Blumea balsamifera, Carbon Market, and Philippine energy law. That's why I rely heavily on the relevant WikiProject, because they have expertise in diving into the deep end of the Internet on topics like this. Bearian (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subic Broadcasting Corporation. There are some not great sources in the Subic Broadcasting Corporation article. If more sources for the DXXM article are found later, it can be changed from a redirect back to an article. - tucoxn\^talk 11:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and chips

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

All of the four sources are the *barest* possible passing mentions, zero are significant toward GNG. Just because chicken (fried/roasted/whatever) is, like many other foods, commonly served with chips/french fries does not mean that the combination is a specific dish that is notable or needs its own article. Unlike the well-established fish & chips, I am not finding sources that specifically discuss this as a notable set, just a parallel name. Nor do sources establish the mentioned "chicken and chip shops" is a specific thing, rather that shops that specialize in chicken also offer chips as a common side, and I don't think this is a necessary article. Reywas92^Talk 04:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect to Chicken tenders with a comment about how chips or fries are a common side dish. Moritoriko (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources, but just wanted to say that I don't think Chicken tenders is an appropriate redirect. The chicken in "chicken and chips" is not always in that form (in Australia, often not, I would say - it's often a quarter or half a roast or barbequed chicken with chips). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, I'm usually fine with redirects but there's so little to this generic concept and no directly related article so I'd rather see it deleted. Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the edit history of the article to indicate where proper sources might be found. The first source cited is a 1970s newspaper article about the rising price of beef. The third source even tells the reader in the citation that it is an advertisement, giving the price of chicken and chips. As did Special:Diff/528477895, which sets a low bar indeed when it is one of the better pieces of rubbish added to the article over the years. Looking for sources, the world seems to have written nothing more profound on this subject than the tautologous statement that it is chicken, with chips. The icing on the cake is that no image ever added to the article has illustrated the content that claims how it is usually packaged. Which makes a third of the article now at hand a lie; but then that is the last remnant of longer text originally in the article that seemed to be making the bizarre case that KFC does not sell chicken and chips. (For my own amusement, I tried to find a KFC menu on the WWW from somewhere near the places mentioned in Special:Diff/528477895, which was such a random addition to the article. I found one. It sells chicken, optionally with fries.) I see no way for this to become a proper article. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a perfectly good compromise/ATD. There's literally one good source. I don't have the patience to look through potentially thousands of recipes, advertising, and Facebook posts on Google to find two more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several scholarly articles looking at consumption of chicken and chips from the perspectives of unhealthy food/obesity and young people's preferred social spaces and sense of agency, eg "“Two quid, chicken and chips, done”: understanding what makes for young people’s sense of living well in the city through the lens of fast food consumption" [1] and [2] (which also says "a London-based observational study of food behaviours of secondary school pupils showed that the most purchased fast food takeaway product was chicken and chips. Further, that skipping lunch at lunchtime to save money for after school socialising and eating was a popular means of financing this"). There are also sources that talk about chicken and chips as a ubiquitous food consumed travelling through Essex, Holland and Belgium (a review of John Muckle's novel My Pale Tulip [3]) or through Iran by train (an article by Robert Fisk in The Independent [4]). There are recipes for home-cooked chicken and chips from Jamie Oliver [5], Better Homes and Gardens [6], Country Life [7], etc. There are newspaper articles like "Chicken and chips: My very first time" [8]; "Why chicken and chips now top the menu at Britain’s newest restaurants" [9]; "Liverpool's first KFC that sold chicken and chips for 47p" [10]; and a Zimbabwe election with one party giving away free chicken and chips "Zimbabwe election: Chicken and chips put a taste for democracy to the test" [11]. There are other scholarly sources which I haven't yet accessed, and books and journals which only show a snippet view on Google Books, such as the Journal of the British Chicken Association suggesting the use of chicken and chips as an alternative to fish and chips in 1964 [12]. There's a poem called "Chicken and Chips" in an anthology published by Oxford University Press, according to this book from 1998 [13]. This seems to me plenty to meet WP:GNG, and to write about health and social aspects of the meal, its history, and cultural uses. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. These are minor passing mentions, generic, or inconsistent, still merely pairing a popular entree and a popular side and not enough to justify a standalone article even if the alliteration makes it a good name or that it parallels fish and chips. These recipes and subjects of articles are entirely different, sometimes about fried chicken and sometimes about roast chicken. Anything about history and cultural uses can go generally those articles or fast food or Fried chicken restaurant/chicken restaurant, such as the discussion relating to health. There's nothing substantive in those articles specifcally about this combination that justifies a standalone article and that can't be added to those articles, as well as ubiquitous French fries. Would be absurd to even mention in the encyclopedia that a political party gave out fried chicken once. Reywas92^Talk 16:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you are, but the use of word "entrée" to mean the main dish of a meal is (I think) North American - it is certainly not British or Australian (where an entrée is what you eat before the main dish). Perhaps "chicken and chips" is not a thing in the US as it is in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Chicken and chips does differ from fish and chips in that the chicken is sometimes roasted on a rotisserie, sometimes (battered and) fried, sometimes processed chicken, sometimes actual chicken or chicken parts - but that is part of the selling point of each shop (as discussed in some of the sources I found). We also wouldn't call most shops selling takeaway chicken and chips "restaurants" - they are chicken shops (as named in the sources), cafes or just take-aways. I could just as well argue that there's nothing about fish and chips which couldn't be said in the Fried fish article (where in fact the first photo is of fish and chips!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do have chicken and chips in the US, we just call them french fries and the chicken is fried. Fish and chips is a specific style of fried fish with less variation and as shown in the article has plenty of history specific to it and clearer cultural significance. This is not a good comparison. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Given sources doesnt support and it Fails WP:SIGCOV.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McAllister

AfDs for this article:

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

Coverage appears to be limited to ads for his live performances. Unclear what about McAllister's career would convey notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Michigan. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain any more. He may or may not have won a Grammy or just played for a Grammy winning group. Delete Same reason as nom. Just a resume, not a notable person under WP:NMUSIC or WP:NPROF. Can this be deleted under WP:A7? or recreation of a previously deleted page? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Or WP:G4? CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 01:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - The first AFD discussion was of a different person with the same name. The second AFD discussion was of an article that as far as I can see solely only ever pointed to this person's own WWW site as its one single source, which isn't quite the case here.
    Remember: The important thing is whether multiple people other than Timothy McAllister have written in-depth about Timothy McAllister's life and works. It's not about how subjectively worthy one might think someone to be. So go through the cited sources and any that you can find, and see whether any qualify as in-depth and independent of Timothy McAllister here. They obviously did not the last time, as there was only one and it was autobiographical.
    Uncle G (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Thank you. I am no longer sure, I will strike my comment. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am currently finding sources. I would find it hard to believe that he would not meet WP:NMUSICBIO, with reviews of his live performances and albums, not to mention being the saxophone soloist on a Grammy-winning album. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Grammy is pretty much undeniable. Withdrawn. Thank you for your work. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:46, 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. ✗plicit 14:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Bøchmann Melchior

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

Fails NACADEMIC. No sources found on Google Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article currently only has one source, but it's the Danish Biographical Dictionary (Dansk Biografisk Lexikon), so he meets WP:ANYBIO#3. There is more info in that source and in the Danish Wikipedia article which could be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per ANYBIO, though I did not find any usable coverage in Norwegian. According to DBL, the middle name should be spelled with one N. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3. The entry in Dansk Biografisk Lexikon also appears to cite four secondary sources. The only one I was able to track down was this one, which is titled "In memory of the Herlovian Hans Bøchman Melchior" and is by his peer Frederik Christian Sibbern. I don't speak Danish and it's a book scan so I can't properly assess it, but it's 58 pages long and seems like it might be usable. It also looks like he is covered in this book, but I can't find a digitised copy of it. And he also has an entry in a separate Danish biographical dictionary. So keep based on WP:ANYBIO#3 and because from what I could find it seems that sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG almost certainly exist. MCE89 (talk) 07:38, 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 B-Tight. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B-Tight discography

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-Tight. Discography for a hip-hop artist with no evidence of notability. MediaKyle (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. MediaKyle (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into B-Tight. No need for a seperate page for the discography of this artist, but the verified multiple national charting itself is a very clear indication towards meeting WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 21:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to B-Tight and merge the content into the B-Tight article. Even though the artist is notable, the discography of this artist does not meet the criteria at WP:NLIST: "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." - tucoxn\^talk 15:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SchemingMind

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

Non-notable organization and web server; fails WP:NORG. Most sources in the article only contain trivial mentions, and the ones that don't ([14], [15]) aren't great. One is written by the US Chess correspondence chess director, with dubious independence and reliability, and the other is a blog post. I couldn't find any other non-trivial coverage. deproded in 2008. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Organizations, and Websites. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADPROMO This is a privately owned organization that requires a payable subscription to join. The external links are promotional. The Wikipedia page serves only to recruit membership. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The given sources are written in way to promote the subject. Nothing more than advertising in this article. Coverage are trivial without substance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big (gamer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and in most he is mentioned only briefly or in passing. No significant achievements in tier-one leagues or tournaments during his career. Yue🌙 22:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. Yue🌙 22:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: two seasons as a player with no truly WP:RS; fails WP:GNG Variety312 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, coverage is either unreliable or trivial passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seraph (gamer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and he is mentioned only briefly or in passing. No significant achievements in tier-one leagues or tournaments during his career. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and South Korea. Yue🌙 22:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in Korean-language sources. seefooddiet (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the closest to WP:SIGCOV [16], but none otherwise. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:06, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edible

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

While obviously a well-known and notable topic, fails per WP:NOTDICT. People are just more likely to search up "edible" elsewhere, to be frank. KrystalInfernus (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the concerns raised by the nominator do not seem to need solving by deletion. Geschichte (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a weird little stub, but it's got three reliable sources. I don't see why it must be blown up, which is essentially the argument. I'm willing to change my mind, but I'd also like to hear from the foodies. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Few of the sources look independent and give significant coverage about the topic. This word also deserves from medical point of view where this is used more often to describe objects. will go with Bearian (talk). Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Gujarat

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

I cannot find many sources that refer to a "Kingdom of Gujarat" that consists of the Chaulukya dynasty and Vaghela dynasty as one polity separate from what came before or after it. This article seems to be a WP:POVFORK of those 2 dynasties' articles, and adds no new information. The creator of the article, PadFoot , actually removed content from those articles, without consensus or at least a discussion, to create this article. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Gujarat. AlvaKedak (talk) 21:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ~~Per nomination, "Kingdom of Gujarat" flops under WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search digs up nothing independent or significant,~~ its just a POV-fork article of Chaulukya dynasty & Vaghela dynasty without any prior discussion. Total trash per WP:CFORK, no point keeping this mess around. NXcrypto Message 06:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the sources cited do check out. I checked the very first one, and it does indeed say on page 311 that there was a Kingdom of Gujarat founded by Mularaja and lasting until 1298.
Random history books such as Allied Publisher's Indian History yes in fact do have the Chalukyas and the Vaghelas as one thing from 950 to 1300 when it was annexed to the Sultanate of Delhi. That's in its Chronology at the start of the book, and later it says that Alauddin's "first major conquest was of the rich kingdom of Gujarat, which was then ruled by the Vaghela (Chalukya or Solanki) king Karna."
Likewise The Groundwork of Indian History (Chuckervertty, Chatterjee: "[…] the Chaulukya and Vaghela kingdom of Gujarat"), The Story of Early Indian Civilization (Longmans: "[…] finally annexed to the Sultanate in 1297. Thus ended Hindu rule in the kingdom of Gujarat"), and others. I was slightly concerned about Raj-era sourcing until I started turning up 21st century books such as Schmidt's An Atlas and Survey of South Asian History which says that the Delhi Sultanate under Alauddin "conquered several neighbouring, independent kingdoms. The kingdom of Gujarat was forcibly annexed (1299)".
There's also the 1989 Gujarat State Gazeteer that says "During his campaign in South India he had already been attracted by the proverbial wealth of the sea-borne kingdom of Gujarat. He therefore seized the opportunity that came on his way by itself. Alauddin ordered his brother Ulugh Khan, alongwith another trusted general Nusrat Khan in Delhi to invade Gujarat in February 1299 A.D"
We can be quite confident that this is not a Raj-era thing from Apama Kapadia's 2018 CUP Gujarat: The Long Fifteenth Century and the Making of a Region having this whole kingdom as one thing under the heading "The Chaulukya–Vaghela Polity, c. 940–1304", beginning with Mularaja and ending with the Vaghelas losing to Alauddin.
I don't know where you two are looking, but it certainly hasn't begun with the sources right in front of you, and the statement that there are no sources presenting this as one continuous kingdom from Mularaja up to Alauddin is blatantly false. There definitely are, and if I could find them, with my limited means, you two certainly should have been able to.
Uncle G (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will concede that point to you, you are right. It was an oversight on my part and I should have looked into those sources before I filed this AFD, my apologies to everyone.

However, this article does not contribute any new information, everything except the lead and Infobox was copied off the Chalukya dynasty and Vaghela dynasty articles. The creator removed the History and Culture sections from both articles [17] [18] and just pasted those contents (little to no changes) into this article without a discussion. Those contents that were removed have since been restored, making this article redundant. AlvaKedak (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as the article has pretty substantial material and sources On a second thought, Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK, as there aren't sufficient reliable sources to group the dynasties into one kingdom. Waleed (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changing vote with reason per WP:CFORK. Keep. I am confused why this page was nominated. After going through first source itself, I see coverage on the subject and more followed after. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue here is not whether the "Kingdom of Gujarat" is mentioned in sources, it is the fact that this article appears to be a POV-fork of the existing Chaulukya dynasty and Vaghela dynasty pages, created without prior discussion or consensus. Much of its content was lifted directly from those articles with little to no new information added. While Uncle G rightly notes that some sources treat the Chaulukya and Vaghela periods as a continuous polity, the key question is whether this overlap justifies a separate article, or if it is better addressed within the established dynasty pages. Given the redundancy, I am still inclined to support deletion per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. AlvaKedak (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Clearly a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, most sources are old which shouldn't be taken into our evaluation. While some sources may mention the "Kingdom of Gujarat" and we may get multiple google book hits with it but that doesn't mean reliable sources actually group the dynasties into one umbrella kingdom. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 10:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by MTV#Reality shows 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissed (American TV series)

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

Article has been sitting around since 2006 with numerous edits but no citations. It's time to either delete it or merge content with MTV Variety312 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of programs broadcast by MTV#Reality shows 2 as an WP:ATD. Can't see any justification to keep this as an article as does not appear notable enough, like so many other short-lived MTV TV series. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sohail(Khan)

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

Non-notable prof. Coverage that is independent does not give significant coverage to satisfy the GNG. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pakistan. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: there appear to be a couple professor with a variation of the spelling of the name. It would be beneficial if the article author could clarify. In this case, the subject may be notable, in which case this article would likely benefit from a draftify. Bobby Cohn (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Gheus (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing that can be ruled out here. 190.33.36.35 (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A consensus to Keep this article but also agreement that it needs some attention from editors knowledgeable about this subject who can improve sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tables, ladders, and chairs match

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

Subject of this article is not substantial enough to meet criteria for WP:GNG and merit a stand-alone article. Article should be deleted or moved to WWE Variety312 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. This isn't even really debatable. Was any WP:BEFORE search done? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Is the rationale based on sourcing alone? The sources present are awfully weak and may lend a notion to the uninitiated that it fails WP:DEPTH. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems like it would have enough coverage on its own to warrant an article to itself. It's not just a WWE thing as well. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like? Or actually does? There are two sources in the article at present. What and where are the others that could be used? Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I think the article needs some work. It's just a summarize of every TLC match in WWE and other promotions. I don't read the impact during the attitude era with the Dudleyz/Hardyz/E&C. No mention two TLC matches were awarded with the PWI Match of the Year... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read deletion policy and the Guide to deletion. That isn't really useful for this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on HHH's extensive AFD participation in this topic area, I would venture a guess that they're not a native English speaker. If that's the case, then at best, you're not assuming good faith, and at worst, you're mocking them. At least you answered my question above. Are you saying that Wikipedia is a mere collection of sources, and appropriate weight and context no longer matter? That's how it appears to me. Last I checked, awards are a factor in determining notability. There are plenty of articles which exist solely because the subject won some particular award. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment 1, I'm not an English speaker. Spanish is my first language. Two, similar to Ladder match, the article is a collection of every single Ladder/TLC match and has been removed in the past. The TLC article has to focus on the match, origin, repercusion... not a list of every TLC match hosted by WWE/TNA/ECW. So, while I think the article is notable, it needs some work to avoid a future nomination. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:08, 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. The GNG and OR issues have remain unadressed. Sandstein 06:23, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State-Based Control

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

The vast majority of citations in this article are to the article author's self published book (see comment here). Most of the rest are other self-published sources, whitepapers and such, from 'Emerson Automation Experts' or employees of Emerson in other venues. What remains are cites (such as 'Control Global' or 'OnePetro') that do not mention the topic of the article. I've looked and haven't turned up any better sourcing, and the author of the article has stated on my user talk that their self-published book is the only one on this topic and there is 'not much out there' otherwise. Since we have very few (1, I think) reliably published sources - and no sources independent of Emerson automation - It would appear this topic does not meet WP:GNG and ought to be deleted. I'm not aware of any more specific notability guideline that this might pass instead, MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify -- it's possible that more sources of coverage will emerge than just him and Emerson, but until there are a significant number of independent voices commenting on this idea there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This statement feels like a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the Insite and discussion. I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning. I am reading through the Conflict of Interest material on Wikipedia, WP:COI WP:GNG , WP:REFSPAM. Please give me some time to read through those and I will get back to you.

I will stand by that my sources are reliable, even though there is a potential conflict of interest. Also I am retired from Emerson, and nobody makes a significant amount of money from an engineering reference book.

I appreciate that you are saying that Wikipedia requires multiple sources for reference. I would hope that there is a means to introduce new things to Wikipedia so that people can learn about them and grow knowledge in that area. This technology has been siloed in a few companies for many years, so as mentioned not much out there. It has great potential for benefit to humanity, through improved safety and productivity.

As Dow Chemical mentioned in reference 2, this technology enabled health and safety, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars.

It is also a type of automation that fosters human automation partnership. So, offers a lot to learn on how to deal with AI. It is a very worthwhile topic.

To my knowledge there is at least one other book on the topic in progress, and in time I am sure there will be more.

This is something that people in industry should know about, and I hope we can find a way for the article to stay. If not in its present form, then maybe some modified form. ProcessControlEng (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to get the word out about what 'people in industry should know about', see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Whether citations are reliable or not is only part of the equation here - Wikipedia also needs them to be independent, and every source we have so far that is on topic is related to yourself and/or Emerson. MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG

"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

From the above statement I take that Wikipedia articles are only suitable for well-established topics. There is simply not much available on the topic of State Based Control. I accept that Wikipedia is not the place for the article. ProcessControlEng (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. I'm constantly surprised that some folks, even after 24 years, don't know that Wikipedia has never published original research. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Noolands

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are the existence of singles and EPs (where NMUSIC requires full-length albums), airplay on the local radio station in their own hometown (where NMUSIC requires playlisting on national networks, not just individual commercial radio stations), and having been booked to play a cancelled local music festival (where NMUSIC requires a national tour that actually happens) -- and the article is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources, which are not support for notability, and purely local coverage in their own hometown, which is not sufficient to demonstrate more than strictly local notability. The only more than local source present at all is used solely to verify the cancellation of the festival, and does not constitute support for the notability of The Noolands.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the band from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better sourcing for it than just a small handful of hometown coverage in Barrie's community hyperlocals. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Source review:

https://www.barrietoday.com/whats-up-wednesday/the-mics-are-hot-at-mix11-studios-in-citys-south-end-7-photos-1577400 -- not significant coverage
https://canadianbeats.ca/2019/05/13/the-noolands-release-new-single-grenadine/ -- not really significant coverage
https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/local-news/noolands-take-you-behind-the-scenes-for-an-unfiltered-look-at-the-music-1336704 -- good, although somewhat an interview
https://www.barrietoday.com/local-news/its-pedal-to-the-metal-for-the-noolands-recent-release-us-on-a-bus-967950 -- might be significant coverage?
https://www.billboard.com/pro/roxodus-festival-ontario-canceled-rain-weather-toronto/ -- can't access, unlikely to have significant coverage though
https://barrie360.com/local-artists-are-determined-to-overcome-the-roxodus-aftermath/ -- not significant coverage
https://web.archive.org/web/20190716063742/https://canadianbeats.ca/2018/04/10/the-noolands-release-video-for-loosey-goosey-and-announce-ep-pre-order/ -- not a lot of coverage
https://web.archive.org/web/20190716063739/https://www.screamsmedia.com/post/the-noolands-us-on-a-bus-behind-the-scenes -- can't load for some reason? might have significant coverage.

Rationale for draftifying: the band might end up getting bigger? No reason to wholesale deleted the relatively well-cited article. Significant coverage other than interviews does not really seem to exist, and what there is is pretty local. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on the above source assessment. They've been inactive since 2019, it seems unlikely that they would receive additional coverage anytime soon.-KH-1 (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Because of suspicions about copyright violations, I'm going to just delete this article version. If an editor wants to create a Redirect at this page title, feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Engine (CIG)

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

This is not the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Despite the WP:REFDUMP here, all substantial coverage appears to derive from WP:PRIMARY and other non-WP:RS such as youtube, reddit, chats, wikis, and Wikipedia itself. I previously attempted WP:DRAFTifying, but the creator has put it back in livespace. Apparently, that option is off the table. JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As i see you are a VERY old user and i, on the other hand, joined 1 and half a month ago. Still it is beyond the matters od date we joined. I would like you to state and reason and i would make revision to create an article for knowledge and information. Neither i want to harm wiki and neither to play with it. I use wiki all the time and i know how it feels to be falsified. thank you. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Are we supposed to discuss something? I would wish a reason to accept a deletion criteria since i stressed myself for 3 days and 72 hours to write this thing which is about a game engine. You cannot just come and say 'hey how about delete it' and be okay with it. we have to discuss the reason and play mutually rather than delete-delete games. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article virtually complete overlaps with the development of Star Citizen and Cloud Imperium Games, would suggest a merge in any case. IgelRM (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a more detailed information about merging so I can edit this as this discussion over the topic prefers. This is bit of vague for me. Sys64wiki (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And tbh it would be better if we chose to act more quickly since I don't feel secure with the deletion template over my article. Sys64wiki (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM, can you point out which portions of the content are mergeable, and supported by any secondary WP:RS? None of the sources jumped out to me as such. And merging unreffed or WP:PRIMARY sourced info is less than ideal. So I'm wondering what there is to merge. Thanks for your feedback! JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is conveying to merge the Star engine and the CIG from the first message which seems to me the actual thing? However he also says it overlaps the contents virtually which seems true. I am checking, deeply, if I can merge anything. It would be good if he contributes to discussion in due times. Sys64wiki (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just talking very generally. Although I agree that the sources are mostly inappropriate, the Star Citizen article currently doesn't mention Star Engine at all. IgelRM (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{Response to merge suggestion}

I disagree with the suggestion to merge Star Engine (CIG) into Star Citizen. While Star Engine is used for Star Citizen, it is a separate technology with its own development history, technical details, and significance.

Star citizen is a game.

Star engine is a game engine.

The Star Engine article provides unique information about its development, modifications from CryEngine and Lumberyard, and its role in game technology.This content does not fit within the Star Citizen article, which focuses on the game itself.

Merging would remove important technical details that deserve a dedicated space. Instead of merging, I suggest improving the Star Engine article with more independent sources and details. Sys64wiki (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, a technology like a game engine developed for internal use rarely pass WP:Notability. Among other issues, please familiarize yourself with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. IgelRM (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia's guidelines, WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources and verified that the article meets the necessary criteria. Each notable statement is supported by verifiable sources, which are reliable, unique, and do not mislead. Given that the article aligns with Wikipedia’s notability and verifiability standards, we should now focus on determining the appropriate course of action for its retention. Sys64wiki (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Star Citizen per above. Reddit, Google Search, YouTube, a MMORPG Internet forum and the game's fan wiki does not constitute reliable sources, with Google Search being a nothing burger for a source and the others being user-generated content. @Sys64wiki I strongly recommend that you try to understand what the editors sent instead of blatantly swearing that the article fulfills all those requirements. In addition, there is a good amount of overlap between both articles, with the minimum required information added into a section. MimirIsSmart (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no content in this article is actually mergeable due to being poorly reffed, would a !redirect to Star Citizen be best for how? I don't mind endorsing that as the nom. JFHJr (㊟) 04:31, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion have been reached to merging? the merge have been proposed and the redirect to Star Citizen will take place.

Is this the end of the discussion i suppose? Sys64wiki (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet but the discussion is leaning towards a Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Citizen; doesn't appear to be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No objection to a very partial merge. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Citizen does seem appropriate here. Just the statement about the engine being used from WP:PRIMARY ought to be OK for the article for the far more notable game itself, I'm not sure a formal merge process is necessary if someone thinks the one useful sentence can be salvaged. ToffeeThumbs (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer: I'm the nominator. I don't think there's anything to actually merge ("this exists" - WP:PRIMARY). The article history is worthless. Its author was blocked for 3 months for disruptive behavior, including copyvios, so the history should probably not be kept. But I will join a consensus to redirect this namespace. Please also consider WP:REVDEL as one possible remedy. Let's close this and move on. JFHJr (㊟) 22:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the subject is non notable per all the excellent arguments above, so the article as it stands should not exist. Having worked on the creating editor's other articles, I found it tricky to winkle out copyright infringements thanks to the combination of WP:CLOP and LLM usage to smooth over the prose. I have run Earwig's Copyvio Detector against this article and there is nothing obvious, but I would not be confident that infringements of some sort are not there, so I'd consider presumptive deletion to be a safer course of action. If there are useful sources in this article that could contribute to other related articles, then I'd recommend that editors use them from first principles and write their own prose, rather than merging existing content anywhere. If we do intend to keep this as a redirect, then I'd suggest that the first version up to and including the version immediately prior to the redirect be WP:REVDELled. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog: Yes to all you said, and thank you re revdel especially. This is a problem. JFHJr (㊟) 22:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanashi Media

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

I can't find evidence that this publishing company meets WP:NORG. The mentions it gets in news coverage all appear to be WP:ROUTINE announcements along the lines of "Hanashi Media is publishing X thing". There seems to be only one plausibly significant coverage, this OASG article, but I'm not convinced that OASG is an RS, and one source is not enough for an article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Anime and manga, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. doesn't have enough sources to establish notability. 4 articles from Anime News Network, count only one time towards notability.Darkm777 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Even the Anime News Network should be treated as a WP:TRADES publication for purposes of determining the notability of entities in the anime industry, and thus is should not count toward NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Grace International School

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an international school in Budapest, and added some references; but I have not found significant coverage of the school, and do not think it meets WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG. Redirect to List of schools in Hungary is possible, though this school is not currently listed there. Tacyarg (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Hungary. Tacyarg (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not notable. Only sources I can find mentioning it are lists of expensive schools. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Riggle

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about the minister of a megachurch, and added references. I cannot find three good sources with significant coverage, however. Mostly it's primary sources or a couple of sentences. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:RELPEOPLE. Tacyarg (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Texas. Tacyarg (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, fails GNG and BIO, definitely not up to the sourcing requirements for a BLP either. Probably worth bringing his church (Grace Community Church (Texas)) to AFD as well. nf utvol (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minister doing ministerial functions, pun intended. The "COVID-19 controversy" section is the dictionary picture of WP:BLP1E. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any substantial sources about him, and few about the church itself. I do want to mention that one of the sources here is about his church being sued over sexual abuse although that is not mentioned in the article, nor in the Grace Church Houston article (which entirely lacks sources). Lamona (talk) 23:50, 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.

Article was deleted via G5. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BMPT-62

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

Created by a block-evading sock. Skitash (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I-Ready

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

Non-notable program. Declined in the draft space, this was created directly in the main space Mekomo (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Mekomo (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable corporation. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I redirected Draft:I-READY and I-READY here; we should have a single centralized discussion on all these rather than treating them separately. The article doesn't provide evidence of notability but this does appear to be deployed in multiple school districts. A Google Scholar search [19] finds some 153 publications with "I-ready" in the title, most of which look relevant and many of which may well meet our standards for depth of coverage, reliability, and independence. I'm not yet formulating an opinion because I haven't looked carefully at the individual search results, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025 West Bengal Hailstorms

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

Lacks all WP:SUSTAINED notability, a storm which caused some damages and delays. Fram (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. Fram (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Agent 007 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS. Not seeing any WP:LASTING effects or ongoing coverage of this weather system. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Chira

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

Subject that is non-notable. Lots of press surrounding his recent death but sources outside of that do not add up to notability. CNMall41 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Kenya. CNMall41 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to discuss the article on Brian Chira, which I submitted. I believe it should not be deleted, as I provided comprehensive references demonstrating his notability as a TikToker. Unfortunately, these references were removed upon approval of the article, which has affected its credibility. I would appreciate your reconsideration of this matter to ensure that the article accurately reflects the notability of Brian Chira and maintains the necessary references. Smart boy Ke (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smart boy Ke I removed the sources because the article was a Complete WP:REFBOMB as another editor commented. However, I see you now put them back. Having million unreliable references does not equal notability, and you need to engage with this nom to provide reliable sources beyond Brian's death. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But they have started a discussion about its deletation please explain to me. Smart boy Ke (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am trying to help it from being deleted that's why am adding more references Smart boy Ke (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a discussion as you said. Just debate the point that being raised and be patient as the community decide based on policies. More references does not address the nom. The nom is arguing that the article can be deleted under WP:BLP1E. Try read the policy and see how can you address it. FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smart boy Ke see this link for how you can participate WP:AFDEQ FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand the concern that this article may fit the WP:BLP1E, but looking to policy it states that: (1) Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. we have coverage now about the anniversary of his death from MSN and Tuko.co.ke (here and [20]). (2) The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual For his death there is a coverage from the BBC which means this not a low-profile individuals. Also there is a plenty of coverage beyond his death from Nairobi news here, here, and here in 2023, Tuko.co.ke (here and here), The Standard (here and here), Nairobi Wire, The Start, and many more for controversial things that he has done (which should have been included in the article). FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So he has a few news articles (two of which are not new imo) about his TikTok activity (routine for influencers) and the rest is about his death. Is he notable for his death or for his arrest for defamation? If its the latter, I can find a lot of news articles on people we could create Wikipedia pages for. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The is not how WP:BLP1E works as I explained above. Buzz Aldrin is mostly known for one event but there is coverage about different aspects of his life, hence why him and other astronauts have articles. WP:42 “in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources” and these articles establish that.

Let’s take a moment and think why would the BBC cover the death of a TikToker if he wasn’t notable enough before his death, as nothing about his death is surprising. 400,000 people who attended the funeral, and you think it’s BLP1E FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, someone is notable if they are written about in the BBC? I am not sure how someone's notability claim of being a TikToker can be compared to someone who's claim to notability is being the second person to walk on the moon, the first astronaut with a doctoral degree (from MIT I will add), and being portrayed in dozens of films and television shows. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a false equivalence if you took the example literally. and yes, someone can become notable if the BBC has written about them. This is how you establish substantial coverage.. from reliable sources. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:1E. Aneirinn (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BLP1E doesn't apply, because he's still dead. 1E might, but on the whole, there are sufficient sources for notability. Many people become notable only when their lives are summed up in an obituary or three. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. Plenty of RS demonstrating notability. Tamsier (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've blocked the author as a sock, therefore this is now eligible for G5 speedy, if needed. I won't go ahead and delete it yet, though, in case there is thought to be merit in letting this discussion reach its conclusion. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it. Great catch to whoever found the connection. It had the signs of UPE but I didn't have any history to be able to connect. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see a clear shift towards Keep once RebeccaGreen's sources were introduced. I'm not comfortable discarding the earlier, valid Delete views, but there's clearly no longer consensus to delete the article, landing us at the No-consensus outcome. Please do not renominate for at least three months, by which point hopefully there will be no need to do so. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms

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

Another piece of Guantanamo cruft. Fails WP:GNG, as these are just prison uniforms at a notable prison. We don't have an article about ADX Florence uniforms. There's no WP:SIGCOV on the prison uniforms themselves to establish notability. Only WP:PASSING. And the article is a collection of WP:SYNTH. WP:ARTICLEAGE or WP:HARMLESS are not valid arguments for notability and thus keeping. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Cuba, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as utter trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. FWIW original creator indeffed. Mztourist (talk) 09:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The topic isn't notable enough to warrant its own article, but there should be at least a few sentences about the uniforms on the Guantanamo Bay article. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 04:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my vote to Keep, as RebeccaGreen has found WP:SIGCOV and has added it to the article. I also agree that the main article shouldn't be lengthened. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 13:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't agree that something about the uniforms is mergeable. There is no indication whatsoever that there is anything notable or WP:DUE about the uniforms. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not appropriate for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 08:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or Merge with Guantanamo Bay detention camp.~~ I am not sure yet if there is SIGCOV, though I did find "North Carolina firm supplies uniforms for war prisoners", and the book Dress Behind Bars: Prison Clothing as Criminality has several pages about the Guantanamo Bay orange jumpsuits [21]. There is some coverage of the use by Islamic State of orange jumpsuits for their prisoners, "a reference to the prison uniforms at Guantanamo Bay" [22] and here [23]. Stage performances have also used orange boiler-suits to represent Guantanamo Bay-style captivity, eg [24], page 24. The book Escape to Prison: Penal Tourism and the Pull of Punishment (page 76) [25] describes how Old Melbourne Gaol museum asks visitors to think about how Ned Kelly would be treated today, and show a photograph of him dressed in an orange boiler-suit ("think Guanatanamo Bay"). The quote in the article, that "that is the image that is being left with people all around the world, that everybody in Guantanamo is wearing an orange jump suit", does fit with these sources. Some more about these issues could be added to the article. The Guantanamo Bay article is already long, so it would probably be better to keep this article separate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. I only found two unsourced, potentially contentious clauses in this article, which can be solved with ordinary edit requests or excision. The main article is too long. Lots of trivial stuff ends up in WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sentence explaining the "compliant" and "non-compliant" uniforms is about all you need to know, the rest appears to be fluff and many photos. I really don't even see the point of a merge, prisoners wear uniforms in prison. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly creepy 'trivia' that is of no importance to any average reader, even for someone who regularly studies incarceration. Nathannah • 📮 23:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article and started adding more sources and info. Many of the arguments presented so far seem to fit WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and/or WP:ITSCRUFT. However, this topic is the subject of a chapter in a book published by Indiana University Press, 4-5 pages in a book published by Bloomsbury Publishing, and an article in The Washington Post, in addition to less substantial coverage in other articles. For other topics, I believe this would be considered WP:SIGCOV. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give participants an opportunity to review RebeccaGreen's added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ODD. The article now passes WP:GNG and there's WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. The article was compelling enough for me to read it to the end, and I'm sure it will capture the interest of other readers.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ODD and RebeccaGreen. Subject is interesting and has been covered by plenty of reliable sources. Whatever problems the current version has can be fixed. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. RebeccaGreen's sources show this topic passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in a Lawyers Suit - a rapist posthumous logos

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

Non notable film. Created as part of a soapbox effort to highlight Bitel's alleged crimes. Massive bombardment of sources but a good number are about Bitel and the allegations and do not mention the film (and predate it by years). No sign of any reviews. Has a laundry list of screenings and minor awards but none are good for NFILM. (I had removed some sources prior to this afd, removed from [26]) duffbeerforme (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was screened at several film festivals, but then never seems to have gone anywhere, no reviews or much of anything found. I'm questioning the "awards" won, most are in-non-notable festivals. We only have primary sourcing for the wins anyway, so that doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Lulea one is just a poster/photo of the various films, the others are in minor festivals that don't have articles here. I don't see anything we'd use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sourcing available to meet GNG. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Crime, Organizations, Nepal, Pakistan, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to South Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics. I'm closing this AFD discussion as Redirection with the caveat that this article can be restored if sufficient sourcing becomes available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ju-ryong

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Searches in google news, newspapers and books did not yield anything. So maybe this person has a different name? LibStar (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and South Korea. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming a lack of findable information is due to differences in romanization of Korean. Do you have any guess at what romanization system was used, or know of Kim's full name in Korean? Sarsenet (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No LibStar (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least based on my interpretation, it's written as 김주룡. I don't know if other websites use his name differently, though. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm finding some articles about the subject, for example: "TV극성에 멍드는 선수보호 마라톤 골인지점서 기진맥진한 선수 붙들고 아우성 동아일보 | 1983.10.10 기사(뉴스)" [TV Polarity is a bruised athlete protection marathon goal cognition holding a tired athlete and clamoring]. newslibrary.naver.com (in Korean). [The day before the marathon, Kim Joo-ryong (金周龍·Gyeongnam) won the three-thousand-mumble handicap race to set a new Korean record, and even though the two stations had a one-time relegation to secure Kim athletes first with each other. This kind of competition...] A lot of translation issues here but there are several other matches clearly about the steeplechase runner. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chae Hong-nak for a similar AfD. --Habst (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ATD to South Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics - preserves history and gives time to look further for sources. Ingratis (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The article can be spun out again once sources meeting SPORTSCRIT #5 are found. JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT #5 is actually met by the above source from the The Dong-A Ilbo newspaper which goes beyond a mention into SIGCOV, so by this reasoning the article should be kept using this source. --Habst (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst: I can't read the entirety of the Dong-A Ilbo source – how much further does it go into discussing Kim besides the quote you mentioned? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The text isn't OCR'd, so I had to use Google Cloud Vision to translate. Here's a better translation:

이 날 마 라 톤 에 앞 서 전 날 김 주 룡 ( 金周 ( 김 주 용 ) · 경 남 ) 이 3 천 장 애 물 경 기 에 서 한 국 신 기 록 을 세 우 며 우 승 했 을 때 도 양 방 송 국 은 서 로 먼 저 김 선 수 를 확 보 하 기 위 해 한 차 례 승 강 을 벌 였 었 다 . / "The day before the marathon, when Kim Ju-ryong (Kim Ju-yong, Gyeongnam) won the 3,000-meter obstacle course by setting a new Korean record, the two broadcasting stations had a fight to secure Kim first." (It then goes on to talk about that broadcasting fight for several paragraphs)

There are plenty more hits as well, for example see [27] "Kim Ju-yong (Gyeongbuk) at the moment of setting a new Korean record, breaking the previous record by 5.27 seconds, marking 8 minutes 5.8 total 0.2 in the men's 3,000m obstacle race". Overall just searching for "김주용" or "김주룡" at https://newslibrary.naver.com/search/searchByKeyword.naver around the 1980s turn up at least dozens of relevant results in prose, but they are difficult to translate because I need to use Google Cloud Vision for each one. Any way we can reach out to a Korean-speaking Wikipedian? --Habst (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst. 109.36.238.74 (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The sources are not good enough for a separate article yet. Geschichte (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics#AthleticsSouth Korea at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Athletics: As AtD; article can be restored in the future if enough qualifying SIGCOV is found. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Alpha Lambda

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

Does not meet notability. The only source is the group's website. Significant portions are unsourced. Thorough search to find print and online sources was unsuccessful. Rublamb (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Fraternities and sororities, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I deprodded this because its deletion without debate might be controversial. There are a few hits on Google news. I'll leave it up to you all to decide if that constitutes significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those hits pre-date this group and are for another organization. Rublamb (talk) 05:20, 9 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 07:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even searching for related terms like "Clark Atlanta University lesbian sorority" brought up nothing relating to this sorority. It feels very promotional. As an aside I looked at the others on the List of LGBTQ and LGBTQ-friendly fraternities and sororities and a large number of the recently formed organizations have suspect pages as well. Moritoriko (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find anything either, in either news or google at large that would be useful.Naraht (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's Bar-B-Que

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

Lack of notabiity; only notability is its existence with little significant coverage. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Tennessee. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is technically the second nomination for this article. It was originally a biographical article about founder Jack Cawthon, and in that form was sent to AfD in 2013. During that discussion the article was rewritten and renamed into the current article about the restaurant (while retaining the minimal content about Cawthon himself). While there was consensus at the time to retain the article in that form, that was 12 years ago and should not be indicative of whether or not it meets our 2025 standards (on that front, I have no opinion or comment). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 6 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 07:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I've found some sources that seem to show that this restaurant could be notable. This one is from Texas Monthly [28], a decently large magazine away from Nashville. This is a small local article but it says that one of the restaurants is located on the site of a former state prison which could be a section in the article [29]. But overall I don't think that these are enough for it to deserve its own article, its just a run of the mill restaurant. Moritoriko (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to be very run of the mill information with the sources provided. – The Grid (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close‎. The article is a dup of Donald Trump's letter to Ali Khamenei (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's letter to Khamenei

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

Pretty much as classic case of WP:TRUMPHATE per WP:NOTNEWS. Unlikely to receive a WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. A merge to Iran–United States relations is the best we can possible do.Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, and United States of America. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The letter has been covered through the infamous newyork times propaganda https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/08/world/middleeast/trump-iran-nuclear-deal-leader-response.html Baratiiman (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT, WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a news outlet for presidential news releases. This letter was just sent this month. Presidents send out thousands of communication to foreign nations. Not much content or substance on this one.— Maile (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to this month? Realy? Baratiiman (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 12:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun West

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

Not notable tedx, public speaker and coach. No reliable sources to establish the person's general notability either per GNG or Anybio. Insillaciv (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS - all of the references are PR or regurgitated PR. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokhara Premier League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 11:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 11:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. This league is more or less of insignificant importance as per Cricket field in Nepal, All the sources talking about old events. Unless some new development seen and sources are produced accordingly, this article doesn't have place here. Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:52, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhangadhi Premier League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 11:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 11:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability. All the sources talk about old events. These leagues are not conducted on regualr basis due to its lack of popularity. Hardly media coverage can be seen. No in depth independent coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG .Rahmatula786 (talk) 07:28, 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. ✗plicit 13:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of franchise cricket leagues

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

No need for a separate list; already included at List of Twenty20 cricket competitions#Franchise competitions; fails WP:NLIST for a standalone list. Vestrian24Bio 10:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. Vestrian24Bio 10:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to delete on the grounds this is duplicated. Lists are rather short and the content can be dealt with in the other list Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete exact duplication, article doesn't serve any purpose per nom. Robo^Cric Let's chat 09:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Charlie (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Savita Oil Technologies Limited

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like signing agreements, product launches, brand repositioning news., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Savita has fundamentals edges is well-founded and reliable. Unless additional sources emerge, the article should remain under consideration for deletion. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The first nomination effectively resolved the notability issue. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Denuit

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

Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 11:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – He never played at professional level, and the references provided are football profiles. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hobby practitioner. Note that the creator is also the nominator. Geschichte (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLS International

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, activities like winning outsourcing contracts, opening new visa processing centres, deploying AI-enabled HRMS solutions, signing MoUs with various embassies, etc., are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the nominator's comment, this corporation fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCORP. Current self-published coverage and press releases. See [30], [31], [32], [33]. AndySailz (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. It's a contractor for paperwork. Maybe important paperwork, but still paperwork. How is that an allegation of notability? Also, the sources are a mix of regurgitated press releases and stock ticker reports. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT.- Imcdc Contact 10:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly Fails WP:NCORP.most of the sources are in the form of press release. Lacks coverage in secondary source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Aggoun

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some light coverage like this this, but fails GNG overall in my analysis. Player only made one professional cup match appearance 3+ years ago, by the way. Has only ever played amateur league levels. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:20, 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. ✗plicit 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:RS. An alternative to deletion could be merging with Kirloskar Group. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of significant coverage. Wp:SIGCOV Zuck28 (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. - Imcdc Contact 02:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manali Petrochemical

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Current page is just a WP:SPAM. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - it's another company that makes stuff like hundreds of other companies have done in the past 100 or 250 years. Essentially no sources that are independent. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Regarding sources, two are linked to the company website and the other is simply a company snapshot. - Imcdc Contact 10:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Of the 3 sources on the page, 2 are Non-independent sources and one has no coverage. RangersRus (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Yash Birla Group. (non-admin closure) GrabUp - Talk 13:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birla Precision Technologies

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. Apart from that, share price and its forecast are merely routine coverage WP:ROUTINE, regardless of where they are published. They are regularly reported as part of routine market updates without offering any deeper or exclusive insights. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yash Birla Group, its parent company. This just makes stuff like a lot of other companies, and I don't see any allegations of notability. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Yash Birla Group: Agree with the above. (bearian) Zuck28 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yash Birla Group, the parent company. RangersRus (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:08, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Misfits Podcast

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

There seem to be no reliable, indepth sources about this podcast, just passing mentions or tangential stories. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only found 1 source on Google News that non-trivially discusses the podcast, and even this is tangential. Gracen (they/them) 21:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sportskeeda isn't even considered reliable/usable per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real claim to notability, written largely to unreliable or first party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SOAWR

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

lacks sufficient notability and reliable sources to substantiate its claims, as the organization does not have significant independent coverage in reputable sources. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on promotional content Xrimonciam (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion the article has some issues with it, but if you do a WP:BEFORE its clear the organization more than fulfills the notability requirement according to WP:NORG. An organization that operates as a coalition of 70+ civil society organizations working across 33 countries for over 20 years is notable. It is additionally involved in a number of notable activities in the region they operate 1 2 3 4 5

Its true there is a disparity of information about what happens in this part of the world as they are not frequently reported on or by what Wikipedia deems reliable sources. But that does not mean they are not notable. I think it is more than fair to strike or tag what you consider "promotional content" or what you deem unreliable and tag it for cleanup so it can be worked on. It would not take much work to improve this article. But the argument that this org is not notable is just not accurate. Nayyn (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - SOAWR meets the notability requirements of WP:NORG. As a coalition of civil society organisations operating across more than 30 countries for over 20 years, the organisation has significant regional impact on women's rights in Africa. While mainstream media coverage may be limited, the organisation’s work is well-documented in regional and human rights sources. I have already made improvements to the article, and further refinements can address any remaining issues. Deletion is not warranted.

Officialworks (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now meets both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. SOAWR is a coalition operating in 33 African countries, with regional impact on women's rights through the Maputo Protocol. Its role has been independently recognized in multiple WP:RS, including Oxfam GB, United Nations Development Programme, and the American Society of International Law Annual Meeting Proceedings (via JSTOR). These sources substantiate its contributions to legal advocacy and multilateral engagement. With sourcing concerns addressed, notability is clearly established and the article meets inclusion standards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HerBauhaus (talk • contribs) 11:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

El Reyad

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

This is an unsourced stub of a non-notable city, with only one sentence worth of description. JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GEOLAND, easily verified on maps and the Arabic wiki claims 17,000 people live in this town. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is probably also called Riyadh in some sources. Searching is difficult because of the Saudi capital. Geschichte (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GEOLAND. [34] is the best source I could find, but my ability to search in Arabic is basically nil. This is both a settlement and a administrative subdivision but better sourcing should be a priority: at least Egyptian government databases to verify the name and demographics. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shooting at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Mixed 50 metre running target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bohumír Pokorný

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, another Lugnuts stub. No sporting achievements. User:LibStar recently proposed the article for deletion per WP:PROD. The sources, thanks to which it was deproded by an IP, are insufficient for GNG. FromCzech (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. I translated the one web source added and it merely confirms he was a coach and is not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Mixed 50 metre running target per WP:ATD. Jdcooper (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the book source – Historie střelectví z ručních palných zbraní? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does not contain more than what is in the current form of the page. FromCzech (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Jdcooper. It was this athlete's only claim to fame. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There also appears to be coverage in newspaper archive Arcanum - someone should check that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per FromCzech. Variety312 (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shooting at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Mixed 50 metre running target as an appropriate ATD for individuals participating in an Olympics. --Enos733 (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is fine for me. FromCzech (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Perak

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT as he probably also fails WP:GNG. This piece about a disagreement with his agent is something, but probably not enough to sustain a whole biography. As for his sporting career, he made 5 appearances for Osijek in the highest Croatian league (this is just a mention in a squad list) and later played 262 minutes in Bosnia. The source in the article is a WP:ROUTINE news announcement about him leaving the Bosnian club. A story about him opening a gym followed, but opening a gym is hardly notable. Never played during his stay in Malaysia. An almost-but-not-quite-there footballer. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis in nomination. By the way, I'm surprised that his surname means "silver" in my native language... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Badalata Bharat

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

Does not pass WP:NBOOK. Difficult to search because there was not a native script provided in the article but I tried my best to find sources and came up empty. From a Google translation of the one source linked in the article it is not sufficiently independent of the authors to count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOOK.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. Zuck28 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultanate Ahmadabad and its Monuments

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. No reviews or commentary only press release material on its release that, given the Indian media ecosystem (WP:NEWSORGINDIA) and the way they're written, is almost certainly not independent. Also seemingly unfinished. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found no usable coverage on proquest/google. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:11, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Footloose in France

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

Only one review cited, which appears to be someone's blog. I could find no more sources. Does not pass WP:NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Travel and tourism, and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to turn up anything other than the blog, either. The author's website lists three "reviews", but they are the blog and two blurbs. I assume that if any publications had reviewed the book, the author would be very eager to quote them; I don't think there's anything more to find. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any coverage on proquest. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 07:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draftspace: It may be better to await reliable secondary sources with page held in draft. Sedicesimo (talk) 21:34, 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transhuman Citizen: Zoltan Istvan's Hunt for Immortality

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

Unsure if this fulfills NBOOK. Most sources are to source background information. The reviews are from a Forbes contributor (not RS), Newsweek (dubious), and the Marin Independent Journal (fine). That's one, and we need two. The Malta one seems... dubious to me (reads like AI) and is not sigcov anyway. Merion West I am unsure about its reliability.

If not notable mention and redirect to Zoltan Istvan? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, What about The Irish Independent review on Transhuman Citizen? That’s Ireland’s biggest and most notable newspaper, and the review is both a full feature (in print and on web) on the book and its launch. Can that be the second review you are looking for? There’s also the Church and State review, a long standing publication that appears to have decent traffic. And there’s the author’s essay of the book in Foundation for Economic Education, a well-established org which has a wikipedia page and has long published important essays. Of course, there’s multiple mentions in many languages of the book across the internet (in the last few weeks, I saw discussions on it in French and Chinese). Finally, there’s other smaller blogs that ran full reviews in English of the book that aren’t in the wikipedia page like Anne Carlini’s somewhat well known book blog. In short, it seems the book is notable, just barely, given wikipedia standards, and I believe the transhuman and futurist communities would like to see this page stay where it is and be improved upon. Thank you for reconsidering to keep this page alive. AlexDurham909 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexDurham909 That source is reliable, but is it actually a review? I can't access it entirely, it seemed more so an interview. Nevertheless it does help somewhat since it does seem to have commentary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Merion West is probably fine and seems established. So we have 2 decent ones plus interview. I will withdraw this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 06:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shridhar University

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

Fails WP:NCORP, and is possibly AI-generated. Coords lead to a "Singhania University" about 40 km away from the actual location of Shridhar University per the website. The "Ordinance 6 of 2010" that supposedly created this university is about Agricultural Produce Markets as far as I can tell (https://assembly.rajasthan.gov.in/Containers/Legislation/Ordinance.aspx). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and Rajasthan. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 06:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Medical Society

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

WP:N, article generally doesn't meet notability guidelines and very few sources exist for the organization Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, Iraq, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan Premier League

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Afghanistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not convinced by nominator. Geschichte (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? Vestrian24Bio 09:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say "fails this and that" like it's obvious to everyone how it fails the guidelines. Since it's not apparant, you did not provide an argument whereby users could be convinced. Geschichte (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It fails SIGCOV, because it doesn't have SIGCOV, do a web search and see for yourself... Vestrian24Bio 04:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given that the article demonstrates significant coverage through both news sources (like the Times of India) and professional international bodies (like the ICC). It seems reasonable for a national competition in one of the most important sports within the Commonwealth, to be covered here on Wikipedia. Klbrain (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article are enough to demonstrate significant coverage about a top-tier franchise league. The nominator had nominated a lot of articles for deletion within a short time, I doubt whether WP:BEFORE was done. Robo^Cric Let's chat 09:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources are enough for notability. It has significant media coverage . Sources are reliable. Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 06:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feast, Food & Love

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

After a BEFORE, I do not think Feast, Food & Love meets NBOOK. During my BEFORE, I searched Google, Google Scholar, Newspapers.com, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, and Booklist. I didn't find any reviews. Because the book has two authors, a potential redirect is unclear. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Swedish sources seem to be split between spelling out the 'och' or using an ampersand but neither returns any good results. The only mentions I can find are small in articles otherwise about Camilla Läckberg, tidningar.kb.se does show some results contemporaneous to the original release, but these could be routine listings of new books, they are new enough that proper reviews should be available online.
Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Monty Python and the Holy Grail - selectively. I see a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article. The question of what to merge, or even where to merge to, can be discussed editorially. Owen× ☎ 16:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail in popular culture

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

Most of this article is an assortment of pop culture references and random listings, which violates what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There is some decent legacy at the top of the article, but the parent article (Monty Python and the Holy Grail) is at a decently fine page size (57,000 or so bytes), making a WP:SIZESPLIT unnecessary. While this film had a large legacy, the coverage on it does not appear to be so vast that a split from the parent article is needed and is better covered at the parent, per WP:NOPAGE. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the filmmaking section to the main article and run away from the rest, which are all just trivial examples of "borrowing" things from the film. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with Clarityfiend that nothing outside the "Filmmaking" section is worth retaining, and I agree with Pokelego999 that it would be better to cover the relevant information at the parent article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. That being said, what exactly would we merge? The information in the "Financial legacy" subsection is already at Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Development, and the subsequent "Impact on television and filmmaking" subsection is pretty poor. I could maybe see using the cited "How Monty Python and the Holy Grail Influenced Film by Satirizing It" article from The Atlantic and possibly the cited "45 Years Ago: Monty Python and the Holy Grail Changes Comedy Forever" article from Ultimate Classic Rock (is that outlet WP:Reliable for this kind of content?), but in that case I wouldn't use the current content but rather start over from scratch in summarizing those sources. The rest of that subsection is either sourced to this article from Screen Rant (not a source we should be using here, see WP:RSP/VALNET), this article from The Daily Telegraph about the show Disenchantment that briefly mentions Monty Python and the Holy Grail as an inspiration, or completely unsourced. Even the best sources currently cited here are way below the quality I would expect could be found for this topic, so surely we should locate better sources and use those instead. As far as I can tell there is no need to keep the edit history for attribution (WP:CWW), and I don't think the title is worth keeping as a redirect. So I don't really see anything to WP:PRESERVE here and no other strong case for any particular WP:Alternative to deletion. Maybe I'm missing something, but at the moment I don't see why we would merge or redirect instead of simply deleting this. TompaDompa (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There's extra financing info here that isn't in the main article: specific amounts contributed and the other two label backers. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose, though I consider the exact figures to be minutiae and three record companies, including Charisma Records, the record label that had released Python's early comedy albums to be about as good as additionally naming Chrysalis Records and Island Records outright. These are details I wouldn't necessarily include if I were writing it from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no preference on whether this article is redirected, deleted, or merged. Whatever consensus shall be on that, I'll go with it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Monty Python and the Holy Grail was popular culture. Is it not popular any more? ☺
I really do not understand why the article creator made this page in the first place. Nothing was split out of the main page. The article creator has not touched the main page at all. (The "see also" was wikignomed in by someone else.) It seems a total duplication of effort to no good end. Plus, a lot of the content here is things that "are similar to" MPATHG, a lot of which is highly suspect. Eric Idle was not the first person ever to say "Bring out your dead!", which a lot of this content seems to think to be the case. I agree with both Clarityfiend amd TompaDompa on what little there is to merge, and with the latter on perhaps working from scratch from better sources in any case.
Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could merge what's well-referenced in this article into a new article named Cultural impact of Monty Python (based on similar articles like Cultural impact of Star Wars and Cultural impact of Dragon Ball); a Google search reveals more sources talking about the impact of the Pythons as a whole ([35], [36], [37]). -insert valid name here- (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is Monty Python#Cultural influence and legacy. Probably better to work on that rather than creating a new article. TompaDompa (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge material from the "Film-making" section and dumpster the trivia compendium. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Okay, so we're looking at a selective merge - to Monty Python and the Holy Grail or to Monty Python#Cultural influence and legacy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question in the relisting comment: As noted above I see nothing worth merging to either Monty Python and the Holy Grail or Monty Python#Cultural influence and legacy, but if this is to become a redirect (and I don't see a problem with just deleting it—it isn't a particularly plausible search term and anybody typing it in the search bar would have to type both "Monty Python" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" first anyway), the former makes much more sense as a target. TompaDompa (talk) 18:29, 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 ‎ no consensus. There are questions about sourcing and notability but no general agreement. That usually defaults to the article being kept, and having checked that the verifiability requirements for what is a short article are met I see no reason to deviate from that. I have considered the option to redirect, but Khalifa participated in two Olympics, so redirecting to just the 1988 article does not seem entirely satisfactory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Ould Khalifa

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

Declined prod, there is a hidden reference added https://web.archive.org/web/20150219002200/http://www.arabathletics.org/files/Magazines/issue-34.pdf but I'm unsure if this is SIGCOV as it's not cited in the article. Secondly, the current 3 sources are all databases so article still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Coming 17th in 1 event and not finishing another is hardly a noteworthy career. And using WP:NEXIST when no actual sources are provided is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe the subject is covered in the magazine but I left it as a comment because I'm not knowledgeable enough in Arabic to incorporate the coverage into the article. Subject qualified for the Olympics twice and was Mauritania's only long-distance representative. --Habst (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst: Do you have a specific page number for where the subject might be covered at in the magazine? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he would be covered in the Arab Championships marathon section because we know from Bill Mallon's research that the subject set his marathon personal best in 1991, and the Arab Championships covered in that PDF would be the only likely venue for that performance. I've seen this with other athletes from the region also, I think these magazines tend to be under-utilized as a resource. --Habst (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm old enough to remember his sporting days, but he was not one of the best in Africa or the world for that matter. Mauritania does not have a history of producing great sports people unlike some West African/African countries. However, he was good enough to represent and qualify for his country twice on the international arena. His performances on the international stage is however, a different matter, but enough to be added on the Olympics official site. I have tried to search the internet using different variations of his name and different search words, but no luck. I've even checked the corresponding article in Arabic for potential RS but no luck. That article is not better than this in terms of refs. I am however, mindful of the fact, most African RS prior to the dawn of the internet (as we know it today, were info is available at the click of a button) have not been digitized yet and made easily available online. Therefore, the notability of many older Africans, who would have been notable in their day, with significant coverage, can only be verified by certain archives and out of print materials–neither of which are available online. I can't dissect the Arabic magazine as I do not speak the language, and link keeps playing up on my device. Even if one could open it, one still needs to determine if it is RS, and he has been covered in detail. Perhaps notifying other Arabic speaking WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers, Wikipedia:WikiProject Morocco, etc., might help. Tamsier (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if there was bounteous SIGCOV in the "magazine" cited above, it would not count towards GNG as it is published by the governing sports body. Regardless of what we think might be available offline, there is nowhere near sufficient evidence to override the clear requirement that this biography must cite a source of IRS SIGCOV.
I searched IO with "محمد ولد خليفة "موريتانيا ("Mauritania" Mohamed Ould Khalifa) and got just 5 hits: 1 where all the hits were for a "Khalifa al Talisi" who authored stuff on historical Tripoli; 2 from 1986 which has a hit for a Mohamed Ould Khalifa who served as Algerian ambassador to Yemen and a hit for "khalifa" used as the normal word for "successor"; 3 which is the same as the first hit in #2; 4 which is the same as #2; 5 which contains hits for a Mohamed al-Arabi Ould Khalifa who in 2002/2013 translated a work on colonialism in Algeria by Charles-Robert Ageron, a paper on Algerian history by Abdel Wahab ben Khalifa, and another book edited by al-Arabi Ould Khalifa.
That's all the hits where the only search term in quotes is "Mauritania"! JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Does the Internet Archive include any Mauritanian papers? That there would be nothing on him in the search indicates that something is being misspelled; the Olympic results listings were always included in some newspapers, and at minimum there should be matches for him in things like that, if we've got his name right. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Publishing a Wikipedia article comes after sources have been found, not at a time when sources have not been identified. Geschichte (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  We've absolutely identified sufficient sources to write an article, just not enough that it meets Wikipedians' views of "significant coverage" – which makes sense, given that no one has checked relevant archives... BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I only searched in Arabic, as that is the language that would most likely be reporting on him. BEFORE does not require any searching of local or national newspapers, it only recommends checking in the native language. What you are asking for is way, way beyond what is expected for literally any other topic. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Asking for someone to search some Mauritanian source for a Mauritanian athlete is not, at all, "way, way beyond what is expected for literally any other topic". If a modern American subject was AFDed on the basis that "no coverage found in 1950s Australian newspapers", would that be a valid BEFORE search? Since, after all, "the language" was searched! BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that search would only include texts with the word "Khalifa" in it, so it wouldn't pick up matches like "Mohamed Ould" or even "Mohamed Khalifa" without "Ould".

By the way, the Arab Athletics Magazine is independent in this case, in the same way that an nfl.com news article or a fifa.com article can be GNG-contributing if there's no conflict of interest, especially in the case of Arab Athletics which has no financial or social relationship with the subject. --Habst (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
????? The search includes all instances where "Mohamed" "Ould" and "Khalifa" appear in any order anywhere in the same newspaper edition.
No Arab Athletics Magazine is not independent, and the fact that you claim NFL.com and FIFA.com articles can count toward notability of their competitors after having been reminded that governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players countless times is at this point pure tendentious editing. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I added a source that mentioned he held a longstanding national 5000m record. He was also the sole person to compete for Mauritania at both the 1988 and 1992 Olympics, which indicates (along with his record) that he was one of Mauritania's greatest athletes. That we've got an African editor above who remembers Khalifa also seems to indicate significance. Remember that no Mauritanian archives are available to us. Most of their newspapers today remain offline, and his name (which has several variations: "Mohamed Ould Khalifa", "Mohamed Ould", "Mohamed Khalifa") is extremely common; searching "Mohamed Khalifa" (how he was referred to in an article discussing his national record) in the Internet Archive along with "Mauritania" in Arabic brings up thousands of results – even though they have no Mauritanian papers – way too many to look through. However, we know that he was among Mauritania's best athletes in the 1980s and 1990s, and probably all-time, and thus it is simply does not make sense to believe that the nation of Mauritania, with its population of 4,000,000 and about a dozen newspapers, would not have devoted coverage to their best athlete. I think we've got enough to write two or three decent paragraphs on him, and I am sure that if we actually did look at Mauritanian archives, we'd very likely find plenty of in-depth coverage given his accomplishments. Ultimately, I don't think that being strict with our notability guidelines helps the encyclopedia in this case; remember that WP:Notability is a guideline that editors "should generally follow ... though exceptions may apply" – I think this should be one of the rare exceptions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "rare exceptions" apparently being "literally every Olympian from a country whose newspaper archives we can't access easily"... JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, out of the hundreds of Olympians that have been either PRODed or AFDed recently, I've only !voted based on the "rare exceptions" clause this once, with only a small handful of others having similar reasoning. I've got a pretty good idea of what sort of subject is likely to have coverage in archives; this is one of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mauritania at the 1988 Summer Olympics#Athletics. The subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV required by WP:GNG. The 1992 article is also a suitable redirect target, but I prefer the 1988 article since the subject participated in multiple events in 1988. Having two suitable redirect targets is not grounds to choose neither and delete anyway. Frank Anchor 19:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a redirect is reasonable. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Autonomic nervous system. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic nerve

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

Unsourced. From a search, it seems that the "autonomic nerve" either doesn't exist or is a generic term for any nerve in the autonomic nervous system. If this is the case, then the article should be deleted. – yutsi (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. – yutsi (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to corroborate that "autonomic nerve" just means "a nerve in the autonomic nervous systems," which is already covered in autonomic nervous system and its linked pages. Anerdw (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above; there is no specifically named "autonomic nerve." I₂Overcome ^talk 18:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an obvious redirect candidate to me, no administrator deletion tool required. The title is a noun phrase, and a nerve is part of a nervous system. The hyperlinks in the infobox did not check out. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked how it's linked in mainspace. All uses are either as a modifier ("autonomic nerve fibers", "autonomic nerve functions") or in the plural in a clearly general sense meaning "nerves of the autonomic nervous system". That is, all linked instances are in the sense "nerve of the autonomic nervous system". I don't think it's a necessary redirect, but it is a plausible one. So that's either redirect to autonomic nervous system or delete from me, with no strong preference between the two options. TompaDompa (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you check the infobox you can find[38] "automatic nerve fibres" is the English term for the Latin name neurofibrae autonomicae. Christian75 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not quite sure what you are getting at? TompaDompa (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - That the title is wrong, and that's why you see link to this article like "autonomic nerve fibers", because the anatomic name is "autonomic nerve fibers" per "International Federation of Associations of Anatomists" (the link I posted). Christian75 (talk) 14:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't follow. The infobox also links this, which says that the anatomic name is "autonomic nerve". If we go by that, then the corresponding line of reasoning would say that the Latin term on the article—"neurofibrae autonomicae"—is what is wrong and should be "n. autonomicus" (i.e. "nervus autonomicus"). But of course the real problem here is that the contents of the article (The autonomic nerve is a small nerve which carries postganglionic sympathetic and parasympathetic neurons from the zygomaticotemporal nerve [...]) is just wrong. There is no such thing as the autonomic nerve, just as there isn't the capillary or the bone. TompaDompa (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This should be redirected to autonomic nervous system as there is no specific nerve, but the term has meaning and people may be searching for information on autonomic nerves in general. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:47, 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. ✗plicit 03:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delirium Records

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

Unsourced since 2010. I can't find any reliable sources. – yutsi (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – yutsi (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:MUSIC's sense of an importand indie label; a label with no notable artists (Discogs lists only 13 releases total, none from culturally significant acts). Chubbles (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per reply above. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Chubbles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Myer

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

Virutally unsourced (only reference being a self-published site) and written like a resume. Doesn't appear notable through a google search. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Appears to be a personal resume. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable; also, Asialink exists. – yutsi (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG I could find no other sources either GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Kite Runner (film)#Cast. Star Mississippi 01:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Khan Mahmoodzada

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E. Only coverage is to do with The Kite Runner (film) spanning early 2007 to early 2008. Little followup coverage, failing WP:SUSTAINED. I think a redirect to the film would be acceptable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zekeria Ebrahimi, a recent AfD about another Afghani child actor in the same film who was redirected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Afghanistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am not persuaded that they pass WP:NACTOR, nor WP:BIO. Delete without prejudice to a future re-creation once they pass our notability criteria. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Kite_Runner_(film)#Cast: per nom. (NB-BLP1E does not apply to works of art, only to events). -Mushy Yank. 23:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the controversy surrounding the child actors in the Kite Runner, including Mahmoodzada, which gained considerable news coverage at the time, counts as an event for BLP1E purposes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, sure, absolutely!! You're absolutely right. Sorry. -Mushy Yank. 23:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His career seems over, as he hasn't had another film role since 2007. Besides, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball waiting to be chosen as an actor. Fails WP:GNG 190.219.102.197 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thiel (cross-country skier)

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

A microstub article on a non-notable Olympic athlete. As per WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 22:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Germany. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 22:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no idea why the nominator refers to WP:LUGSTUBS, which allows for moving the article to draft space without an AfD. That should have been done instead of nominating for deletion. StAnselm (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugstubs only applied to a specific category of ~1,000 early Olympians. It does not allow for the moving of articles such as this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry - my mistake. Obviously, it shouldn't be cited in a deletion rationale either way. StAnselm (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cross-country skiing at the 1968 Winter Olympics – Men's 15 kilometre as an appropriate ATD for individuals who participated in an Olympic games. --Enos733 (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Enos733. If SIGCOV later surfaces, this can be resored. Until that happens, a stand-alone article can't be supported, because there is a complete failure to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, which mandates: "All sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (Emphasis added.) Cbl62 (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This in the Freie Presse is likely SIGCOV ("A Long Life of Winter Sports" – a story on him receiving the Saxon Ski Association gold medal of honor) but its paywalled... BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article BeanieFan11 refers to has now been added to the article, and so the subject passes WP:SPORTBASIC. StAnselm (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The source from BeanieFan11 shows enough independent coverage for the subject to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per coverage found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 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 merge‎ to Bert Hinkler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hinkler Hall of Aviation

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

a weak article, lacking basic criteria of significance, and supported only by press releases and weak references Loewstisch (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Aviation, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bert_Hinkler#Legacy: where it merits a (condensed) mention. Star Mississippi 01:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any other support for a merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per Star Mississippi’s suggestion, I think this would be sufficient. The nomination points out a critical point - the notability is held together by press releases. The Museum is significant enough to Hinkler’s legacy to be added there, but also agree with SM that it should be condensed to a mention. Brickto (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree that there doesn't seem enough for an independent article, although the Courier Mail article [39] is one piece of SIGCOV. I have otherwise found brief mentions, eg in a Rough Guide to Australia [40] and a book about historic planes. I don't agree that the museum should just have a condensed mention - the Courier Mail article describes the five planes exhibited in the museum, and the collection of memorabilia - this article [41] from Bundaberg Regional Council says that there are now over 5000 pieces of memorabilia which are shown in a series of 'out-of-the-archives' exhibitions. However, some of the info in this article (about the piece of wood that went on the Challenger) is already in the Bert Hinkler article, so there's not much to add that's not already there. I'm not sure whether it should be merged to Bert_Hinkler#Legacy or Bert_Hinkler#Honours, where in fact this museum is already mentioned, as is his house which was moved from England and rebuilt in Bundaberg. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant about condensing, @RebeccaGreen. We don't need to merge it all as there's some duplication between the articles. Noting for closer's sake, either target is fine with me. Star Mississippi 15:03, 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 00:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hoffmann

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

I am the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Arts, Theatre, Germany, England, Costa Rica, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I mean, I wouldn't want something describing a sexual harassment online, guilty or not. Seems to be enough written about the individual as a curator [42], nothing in the Getty ULAN [43] Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrote a rather extensive book on the curation process "Curating from Z to A", although I see no book reviews, for it, appears to have had an extensive career with several notable art institutions. As explained above, the sexual harassment items are not something one would want to be kept online, but I see no reason to delete the article otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Book reviews here [44], [45] and was the subject of a magazine article here [46]. The Seawall one is perhaps not as good quality as the other two though. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are also three reviews of Show Time: The 50 Most Influential Exhibitions of Contemporary Art at JSTOR 24242321, [47], and [48], one of Curating from A to Z [49] (to which Z to A is the sequel), one of Life in your head [50], etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is generally well written and sourced. Appreciate the nominator being transparent. Boredintheevening (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's notability is established by his book, with supporting evidence provided by published reviews.Gedaali (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources describe him as a "star curator" and "Hoffmann, one of the must (sic.) prominent freelance curators in the art world...." so WP:GNG is easily met. It's not like a school superintendent in Upstate New York, or a retired child actor who ended up working for his brother's real estate office like a modern Baby Jane, or an assistant professor at X state university concerned about her prospects for tenure if she's seen as a publicly hound, or the state judge arrested for lewd behavior, or a singer who backed up Andrea Boccelli a few times, or even the descendant of the founding father of Chile accused of slavery (yes, all real life examples from New York). In such marginal cases, I'm happy to let them recover their privacy. But this subject has worked for some of the most prestigious cultural institutions in the art capitals of the world, wrote a widely reviewed book, and sought media attention. I'm sorry. If you want to appeal, go to Jimbo Wales. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject of the article meets notability criteria for an encyclopedia article per WP:GNG. The sourcing in some of the sub-sections on his curatorial career accomplishments can be improved (and the maintenance tag at the top removed afterwards), but that is not a reason for deletion. The rest of the article appears to be properly sourced. AfD is not clean up. Netherzone (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe that NAUTHOR is met here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hitachi#GlobalLogic. Despite the relist, no sourcing presented to counter claims that there exists no coverage beyond non-notable business activities. Goldsztajn (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalLogic

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonnotable outsourcing business. Only regular PR, not a word about the essence of business. Nothing to say, I guess. --Altenmann >talk 19:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (not merge) to Hitachi#GlobalLogic – There is a lot of routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, and mergers that do not count towards notability (see WP:CORPTRIV). The first ten pages of a google news search didn't turn up anything that would establish notability (nor did the first three pages of a books search). More subjectively, GlobalLogic has had no significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, etc. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm making this post as part of my work for Beutler Ink, on behalf of GlobalLogic. I have disclosed my conflict of interest on the article's Talk page and my User page. This article was proposed for deletion in 2011 and the result was to keep it. At the time, editors found adequate sources demonstrating notability. Some of the links in the prior discussion are now dead, but I am looking to see if I can find archived versions. That said, since 2011, GlobalLogic has continued to receive coverage in reliable sources: eWeek (discussed in 2011), The Hindu (March 2024), The Hindu (November 2024), The Times of India (December 2024), The Economic Times (2024), The Times of India (January 2024), The Economic Times (2023), The Economic Times (2015), MINT (2018), Silicon Valley Business Journal... There are plenty more, largely in Indian based business news. In LexisNexis, I'm getting about 600 results for newspaper articles that mention GlobalLogic, and will continue to look through for in-depth coverage. While frequent coverage is routine, given the past result was to keep the article and that there is still sustained journalistic interest, it makes sense to keep the article and improve it, rather than delete it. Given the limited engagement so far, I suggest at least relisting to give more time for research and discussion. Cheers, BINK Robin (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The India Times coverage is non-trivial. – yutsi (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to what is known as The Times of India, it is not considered a reliable source, see WP:RSP. Aneirinn (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~.Redirect to Hitachi#GlobalLogic – Per WP:NOTADVERT. This article is entirely dependent on routine WP:DOGBITESMAN coverage and press releases. It reads like it is just a list of its acquisitions. This company does nothing and is not notable. Aneirinn (talk) 00:34, 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 keep‎. Improvements to the article show WP:NCORP satisfied. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RAW artists

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

The subject of the article has no notability so fails WP:GNG and I can’t find any WP:SIGCOV. Quite a bit of the article is written in a promotional tone. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and United States of America. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Company that fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV. Apart from the L.A Weekly source which is now a dead-end i don't see any other sources that show that the subject is WP:N. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding other sources in Newspapers.com and will add them to the article. The article definitely needs editing ("passed the leadership torch" is not encyclopaedic!!), but there may be enough sources for it to meet WP:NCORP. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources (and also found the archive url of the LA Weekly source). There is now enough for this to meet WP:NCORP. I have deleted some info for which I could not find independent sources - some still remains to be sourced. I've also deleted most of the non-encyclopaedic wording, I think. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added by RebeccaGreen (e.g. The Orlando Sentinel article) establish notability. – yutsi (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree that sources provided by RebeccaGreen establish WP:NCORP. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP HEY (improved during the discussion). Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amirreza Borzooei

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails notability, it was deleted once Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amirreza Borzooei recreated again first under a different title to trick wikipedia. this guy won only few medals in age group competitions. no big senior achievement, the article tries to sell his medals as senior medals. Sports2021 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as first nomination, nothing has changed. Nswix (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G4. Anerdw (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little has changed since the article was deleted last October. His successes were in youth tournaments. He was one of 69 competitors in his division at the 2023 adult world championships, but he didn't win any fights and has a current world ranking of 56th. [51] Papaursa (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Vanity page. WP:G4. Lekkha Moun (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability criteria yet. RolandSimon (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

Martin Helme