Purge server cache

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]
• 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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

• 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]

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

Fails 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]

B-Tight discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

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

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

Low-quality duplicate of Online video platform with only 1 blog source. yutsi (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. yutsi (talk) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable organization and web server; fails WP:NORG. Most sources in the article only contain trivial mentions, and the ones that don't ([1], [2]) 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]

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

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

Fails WP: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]

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

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

Fails WP: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]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in reliable sources; given sources are routine coverage and Ohq is mentioned 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 ☎ ✎ 05:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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

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

I cannot find any 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]

Dismissed (American TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article has been sitting around since 2006 with 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]

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

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

Non-notable 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]

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

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

Article should be merged with Cisneros Media. Does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article Variety312 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Variety312 (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tables, ladders, and chairs match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject 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]
• 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]

State-Based Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The 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]

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

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

Article 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]

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

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

This is not 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]

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

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

I think this article is useless. Everything about the conflict in Azawad is perfectly summarized in Mali War and Tuareg rebellion (2012) articles. Plus, this article has many errors and is lacking citations for decade. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A classic case of a redirect with possibilities being needlessly disambiguated. Yes, this term is French for English, but WP:DAB explicitly states that a disambiguation page is not a foreign language dictionary. Sure, there are historical ties between English and French, but this could be said for any number of pairs of languages; it doesn't warrant foreign language disambiguation for all of them. Should be a redirect to the only thing known by this name in English, as it was originally. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and England. — Anonymous 19:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I 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]

Black Churches of Capitol Hill (Nashville) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This essay fails WP:GNG because it is WP:OR on the topic of the Black churches of Nashville's Capitol Hill neighborhood. The only source that addresses these churches as a group is the WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable Historical Marker Database. (Several if not all of them would be independently notable, but there's no coverage of these churches as a group.) In this article, and in my BEFORE search, all the other sources address the individual churches, not the churches as a group. The article also fails the WP:NOT test of GNG by being an essay, and separate from its notability challenges is poorly formatted and included several copyvios. A note on the procedural history here: I hate to bring this page to AfD since it was created as part of a WikiEdu class. I found it in mainspace with sandbox templates and initially draftified it to give the creator or others time to improve it, and a WikiEdu staffer later moved it to userspace. The page creator appears to have moved it back to mainspace, leaving no option but AfD since this page is still nowhere near ready for mainspace and it does not meet any notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Christianity, and Tennessee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article on an individual that appears to have played a single season of professional lacross. Sourcing is all either non-independent profiles or statistical outlines, with one local news outlet on his transfer from Syracuse to Georgetown. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. nf utvol (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Grace International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

Mount Sinai South Nassau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is nothing indicating this hospital is notable. This article has not been improved since it was created nearly a decade ago. The corporation fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. An alternative would be to have it redirected to its parent corporation, Mount Sinai Health System. Aneirinn (talk)

Oppose. Firstly, NCORP is the wrong criteria for physical structures like hospitals. Nomination fails WP:BEFORE, because a quick search shows clearly that the hospital has significant third party news coverage [3][4] (and that's just the first two results). WP:ATD demands at least a suggestion to merge to the parent health system, but the hospital itself is notable. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals in the United States are corporations, this is a well known fact. This one particularly is a nonprofit corporation, so WP:NCORP, which applies to corporations and organizations, does apply. The WP:DOGBITESMAN routine coverage and press release that is mentioned above from your "quick search" does not do anything to contribute to its notability. Per WP:NOTADVERTISING, " Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts." The nomination has been changed to reflect the possible alternative to deletion. Aneirinn (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is an article about the company the runs it, or is it about the facility? Northern of those are "dog bites man" unless you think every news story that's not a national headline is such (and they're not, by longstanding consensus that local news contributes to notability). oknazevad (talk) 21:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, it is commonplace for hospitals to operate as their own entities, for tax purposes. Aneirinn (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my question. oknazevad (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge >>>Mount Sinai Health System (location, history, size). Djflem (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States. Aneirinn (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree NCORP is not the correct guideline here - the sources presented above are more about the building itself than a specific business, and the corporation/business would be Mount Sinai, not the specific hospital. Operating as its own entity for "tax" reasons isn't really why we have NCORP. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The hospital itself is its own corporate entity. That is how it is structured in large companies that own hospitals in the United States that are variously known as "health systems" or hospital networks. Thus WP:NCORP is applicable. Aneirinn (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I 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]

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

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

Non-notable 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 [5] 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]

February 2025 West Bengal Hailstorms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks 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]

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

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

Subject 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 [6]). (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]

• Delete. Per WP:1E. Aneirinn (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay detainee uniforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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 [7]. 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" [8] and here [9]. Stage performances have also used orange boiler-suits to represent Guantanamo Bay-style captivity, eg [10], page 24. The book Escape to Prison: Penal Tourism and the Pull of Punishment (page 76) [11] 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]

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

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

lacks significant independent coverage, relies on non-reliable sources, or serves as promotional content rather than a neutral, verifiable encyclopedic entry Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Environment, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Came into thinking about !voting redirect to List of Birdlife Partners, but I've found several sources which discuss this particular organization in detail enough for WP:NORG. Their vulture program[12][13][14] and birding app[15][16] in particular both got international attention, and I've incorporated that information into the article. There's a lot of passing mentions in scholar sources, due the amount of data BCN produces on Nepalese bird populations, so I'm still filtering through those to see if there's anything in academia about them (given the coverage so far, I strongly suspect there might be - absolutely there's some in connection with the Indian vulture crisis). But anyways, I've rewritten the article and the new sources in it should demonstrate how it passes WP:GNG and NORG. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victory's Short (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promo for non notable short film. Lacks independent coverage, no sign of any reviews. Being screened does not satisfy NFILM. Wanky promotional writing. One of multiple promo pieces largely created by the films production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Film was released, then appears to have been forgotten about. There is no sourcing that i find since the release date, no reviews other than Imdb synopsis and the trailer on Youtube. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. Skynxnex (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

L'architecte textile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promo for non notable film. Claim of "critically acclaimed" not supported by sources. Being screened and winning minor awards does not satisfy NFILM. Wanky promotional writing. One of multiple promo pieces largely created by the films production company. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Fashion, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devil in a Lawyers Suit - a rapist posthumous logos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable 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 [17]) 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]

P.J. Whelihan's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An ip user put this up for AfD, I am just relisting it for them. The same user also put an AfD on P.J.W. Restaurant Group. I think any information in this page can be on the other page instead. I haven't decided if that one should be deleted yet or not though. Doing the searches I just saw the bog standard promotional news of "new restaurant opening" etc. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, United States of America, and New Jersey. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Thanks to Moritoriko for creating this AFD. My intention had been to nominate both together, but they should be okay as separate AFDs. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMI Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Raipur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks Notability for a company/ Organisation Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and India. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added more news citations. Satipem (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check now? Satipem (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've already added more citations about news. Satipem (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to satisfy WP's GNG criteria for this hospital. See [18], [19], [20], [21]. AndySailz (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP: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]

All India Gaming Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fail NCORP; possibly hoax. every link I open leads to not related article. Insillaciv (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Websites, and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @Insillaciv: The sources do not work, but there is some coverage about this body by those same media companies, so definitely not a hoax. Just do a google news search with the title. I didn't check them thoroughly so no vote yet. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

not notable software (WP Product) Insillaciv (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Omnissa is the new name for what was a whole EUC division of VMware. There are wiki pages for the two main products of VMware Horizon (which should now be called Omnissa Horizon) and AirWatch (which should be called 'Omnissa Workspace ONE') MrTAP (talk) 11:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently configured, no notability has been established. The two references are press releases by the Omnissa and its new owner, KKR. They are not independent of the subject of the article and therefore shouldn't even be used as references. If this products lasts and gets independent coverage in reliable sources, it could merit an article, but not yet. Ira Leviton (talk)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I will add additional references, but had only just started. Please note that both product wiki articles have existed for many years - they had just referred to the new company name but only linked to the old company name. MrTAP (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  KEEP I have added references to two news articles on 'The Register' and 'TechTarget' regarding Omnissa being spun out of VMware. MrTAP (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable 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]

2020–21 KCA President's Cup T20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to KCA President's Cup T20.Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The person doesn't pass WP Anybio. All the sources are not of really depth coverage, and his overall achievements are not making him to be eligible in terms of GNG. Insillaciv (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it comfortably passes wikipedia:ANYBIO. Being president of the Bar Association is equivalent to winning a major award. Having an entry in the Who is who legal is equivalent to being in a national dictionary. Schwede66 16:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - because it meets general notability guidelines. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zero coverage outside being mentioned in obituaries, this does not meet notability for singers. Independent releases rarely get media coverage, but we have no critical discussion, no charted singles, nothing that hints at musical notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

List of franchise cricket leagues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No 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]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. 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. GiantSnowman 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paganism and Spirituality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 [24], [25], [26], [27]. AndySailz (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. 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. GiantSnowman 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirloskar Pneumatic Company Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

There 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]

SLC Invitational T20 League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 09:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 09:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

lacks 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]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. Refs are routine business, annoucements, mergers news. No indication of significance. UPE. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quite clearly nominated out of WP:REVENGE Delectopierre (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know revenge. Its too expensive. We will go the references in the next few days. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right... Delectopierre (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a news story whenever a locale purchases Livebarn. This is not WP:ROUTINE procurement coverage, nor is it WP:CORPTRIV. [28] [29] [30][31] Longhornsg (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No its press-release that are being reported locally. Nothing that passes WP:SIRS We will go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to this, it self evidently passes WP:NCORP. This AfD wastes everyone's time.

• CBC: Eye in the sky: How streaming of local hockey has changed the game
• CBC: London hockey organization scores committee approval to add livestreaming cameras to arenas
• Wellington Advertiser: Mapleton council approves agreement to stream events from PMD arena
• The Eastern Door: LiveBarn arrives for local sports
• The Albertan: Minor hockey's new Sundre Arena LiveBarn online broadcast explained
• NYT/Athletic: Drew Bannister’s path to the Blues: Family sacrifice, LiveBarn bonding and the coach behind the coach

Delectopierre (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a variety of reliable sources have been posted.yutsi (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets examine these references here and in the article. I'll look at these first:

• Ref 1 [32] That is a passing mention and fails WP:SIRS
• Ref 2 [33] "The company describes itself on its website as being a provider of live and on-demand video of amateur and youth sporting events from more than 1,000 facilities" That is not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.
• Ref 3 [34] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
• Ref 4 [35] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
• Ref 5 [36] That is annoucement routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV
• Ref 5 [37] That is routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV

Looking at the references:

• Ref 1 Its above.
• Ref 2 Its above.
• Ref 5 [38] "LiveBarn and OMHA Announce New Video Streaming Partnership". Routine annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
• Ref 6 [39] This has taken from a ceo interview. It fails WP:SIRS as its not independent. Fails WP:ORGIND.
• Ref 7 Another annoucement of partnership. It fails WP:CORPTRIV.
• Ref 8 "LiveBarn Receives Significant Growth Investment From Susquehanna Growth Equity" Annoucement of investment. Fails WP:CORPTRIV. Its a press-release.
• Ref 9 [40] Passing mention. Investment in livebarn. Fails WP:SIRS as not independent.

In fact not a single one of these references satisfy WP:NCORP. They fails WP:SIRS,WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPTRIV. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is 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]

Life of Guru Nanak Through Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cited or listed a few times in books about Sikhism but little significant coverage. I found one review that I cannot really access but it seems a standard length academic journal review so that's one [41]. This could have something on the book but I cannot verify whether it is significant [42]. There may be more in whatever language this was originally published in but I was unable to find the original title. The source in the article mentions the book but doesn't mention what we are citing it for (that it was judged one of the best by the president - they're talking about an artist, not the book). This mentions the best thing again but is only one sentence [43] Fails WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sikhism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Who & the Daleks: The Official Story of the Films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the sources look more like group blogs/fansites and seem to lack proper editorial review. If I am wrong about that and one or more does seem to be an RS feel free to object. Starburst is probably fine. There are unverified and strangely formatted citations to SFX magazine, but from the way they're quoted I cannot be sure if they are reviews or passing mentions. All in all idk if this passes WP:NBOOK PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Dr. Who & the Daleks if no further secondary sources are found. I am also not sure about a number of the sources here, but at least Starburst, SFX and Doctor Who Magazine should be fine. Daranios (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah SFX and Doctor Who Magazine are RS, my issue is just I can't verify they contain sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not 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]

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

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

Fails WP: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. GiantSnowman 18:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. There is one maybe usable review here the other is a NEWSORGINDIA issue and seems sponsored. I'm not entirely sure about the other but it seems fine. From a search nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Finance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Appears to pass WP:NBOOK. Found two additional independent reviews from reliable sources such as this, this, and this .Jitendra indulkar (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• These are, 1, the NDTV Profit source already in the article; 2, from Money Control; and 3, from Firstpost. Firstpost is specifically mentioned at WP:NEWSORGINDIA as sometimes doing undisclosed sponsored advertising, though it doesn't mention their book reviews. So I don't think it's any better than the NDTV Profit review that PARAYANKAA flagged as also concerning per NEWSORGINDIA. I am neutral-to-negative on both but acknowledge I am not an expert. As for Money Control, I really struggle to consider it an RS when the website is nearly inoperable with ads and it merely calls itself an "online financial platform" rather than a publication with editorial control. But I am OK with the source from IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, the journal doesn't look predatory and the review seems normal. So I still agree with PARAYANKAA that we just have one fine source. Unless someone is able to provide a strong defence of NDTV Profit or Firstpost (or turn up new sourcing), I think this is a delete. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economy, Society, & History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reviews to pass WP:NBOOK. Quotes so extensively from the book I am fairly certain it is a copyright issue at this point. Redirect to author Hans-Hermann Hoppe? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Oof. That's a lot of quotes. I'd say that about half to 2/3 of the article are quotes so it definitely poses a copyright issue. The quote usage goes well beyond fair use at that point. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the bulk of the synopsis section to deal with the quotes. Some of the content also looks to be kind of original research as well, which would also pose an issue. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect. I wasn't able to find coverage to show where this passes NBOOK. Normally I'd recommend a redirect with history, but the sheer amount of quotations does pose a bit of a copyright issue, particularly as I can't see where any of this was released under a compatible copyright that would allow that level of quoting on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, thanks to those that cleaned up the article and made it shorter and more manageable. Given the available sources, it passes for at least a stub-type article as GNG. The quotes also did appear to have COPYVIO issues, which are now resolved. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And while this exists too, [44]https://mises.org/mises-wire/review-economy-society-and-history, bear in mind that for any counter claim that this is not independent, "Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.", and also for notability, "Economy, Society, and History is a major work, allowing readers to benefit from Hoppe’s insights into a number of areas he has not addressed in other books." Iljhgtn (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iljhgtn MISES is generally unreliable, independence is not the concern. See past WP:RSN discussions. We still only have one source, not enough for GNG or NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it? I checked the perennial list and I did not find it there. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Iljhgtn It's not on RSP but search "MISES" in the noticeboard archives. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The most recent discussion there on the reliablity of that source is almost 5 years old, and for purposes of mere notability of a book should, this should suffice. Had we been trying to justify a contentious or controversial claim, then firstly, it might be helpful to have a renewed discussion or RfC on the source, but secondly, we are not validating any fringe claims here so that is not pertinent to the most salient concern which is that of the notability of a stub book article. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s still not good enough to count for notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily meets the norm for books. And respectfully, the arguments against that particular source being suitable are creations of an editor, not Wikipedia standards. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @North8000 How, exactly? MISES being a fringe publication does not magically stop at their book reviews. We only have one reliable source! PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not 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]

Sultanate Ahmadabad and its Monuments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP: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]

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

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

Only 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]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, 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]

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

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

WP: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]

2023 KP Oli Cup (cricket) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:35, 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 05:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep - nominator is launching several AfDs within a short timeframe, with copy-paste deletion rationale without virtually any detail. AfD nominations are launched with just minutes apart, pointing to that nominator has not performed WP:BEFORE in a reasonable manner. --Soman (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Soman: I may have initiated the nominations within minutes, but I spent an entire day performing web searches etc. to verify its notability. Vestrian24Bio 02:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Prime Minister Cup (Women) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:34, 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 05:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : [45][46][47][48][49][50] these are links of the coverage of the tournament from the prominent newpaper for this season which should be enough to pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.Godknowme1 (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of these are WP:ROUTINE. Vestrian24Bio 02:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

2018 SLC T20 League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Sri Lanka Cricket Super 4's T20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio 05:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feast, Food & Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

After 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]

2010 National Cricket League Twenty20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV for a separate season article. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 National Cricket League Twenty20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also, for same reasons. Vestrian24Bio 05:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Vestrian24Bio 05:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep* – This article is notable due to coverage by reliable sources like ESPNcricinfo and other relevant media outlets. The sources have been added to support the article's notability.

--Sakib H Hridoy (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python and the Holy Grail in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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 ([51], [52], [53]). -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]

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

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

Declined prod, 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]

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

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

Fails GNG as a franchise. Not really even a franchise (1 TV show and a movie) could maybe be merged into the movie article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I suppose what we need is a definition of what Wikipedia would consider to be a franchise. The Lists of multimedia franchises article requires:

In order to qualify for these lists, a franchise must have works in at least three forms of media, and must have two or more separate works in at least two of those forms of media (a television series or comic book series is considered a single work for purposes of this list; multiple spin-off series or reboots of a previously ended series are considered multiple works).

That's to be listed on the page though, so it could be argued that a franchise page might be able to get away with a little bit less. The question is how much less. This has a film, a TV show, and two soundtracks. Soundtracks strike me as something that could be counted in a franchise but are often overlooked unless the soundtrack is particularly noteworthy.

Aside from that, I suppose there's also a question if a spinoff page for the franchise is warranted for what we have so far. Offhand I'm inclined to say leave it, as it could be a good place to cover information about the soundtracks and the sequel film in one location, as opposed to weighing down the main film article. However the coverage for this is also kind of light. I'd need to search for more sourcing before making any definitive judgement. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like with the sequel film, a comic series was also announced. Neither has released yet, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sound tracks could be merged to their respective page Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:34, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's still that question to answer: what is the bare minimum needed to justify a franchise article on Wikipedia and does announced content qualify? Part of the issue here is that the film article would end up doing a lot of the heavy lifting when it comes to anything dealing with the series (films, comic, soundtracks, TV show), even with the TV show having its own article. It's not completely unreasonable for this to have its own article as a spinoff - I'm not saying that it should have one, just that it's not as cut and dry as if it were only the film and movie. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Does it matter whether or not the film was terrible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it does not. -Mushy Yank. 11:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Merge or just Delete in part due to comments by OlifanofmrTennant and ReaderofthePack. There are some undeniable "franchises" in movie history. First,, every subject does not need a seperate article. While Wikipedia was growing, all subjects were fair game for an article. It did not matter if there was a parent article that could really use added content and sources. "Let's create a new wannabe dictionary entry or BLP resume and show the world there is a place for Wikipedia. Now that we are around the 7,000,000 article range, quality over quantity has started taking hold.

• "Flop or bomb": Many times, the movie industry, more especially the media, does not differentiate between a movie "Flop" and a "Bomb" yet there is a clear distinction. Wikipedia tends to combines the two words. Some movies are released with studio expectations (large production costs, a stellar cast and writer, producer, as well as cost and heavy advertising) of making a franchise.

"A bomb": John Carter is one example of many. At around a 200 to 307 million dollar loss Disney forgot they made it. A bomb is not only a commercial failure, critics pan it, and the public just does not take notice. The ship sinks. Maybe it was released at the time (bad timing) of a clear box office success. The media can make a bomb very notable.

"A flop": can end up making money, maybe a going to video, maybe a decision to make a sequel. All of a sudden, acceptance explodes, toys are made and sold, sequels, prequels, more books (and toys), and there is no question of the term franchise. Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Jaws (movie), Psycho (movie), Free Willey, Mission Impossible, among a very long list.

Franchise: If the media uses the term franchise -- we have a winner. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to create a franchise. If there is questionable notability (WP:GNG), "seems likely" to be notable, there is otherwise uncertainty, don't make the article or merge content ("ATD") to a parent or sibling article. There does not need to be a "bare minimum" notability. If there is a franchise, we can call it that. If it "may be" too soon (not in pre-production or filming--bla-bla), lag behind the public and the media. It is, or it isn't, right? -- Otr500 (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some weak nods here and there to a franchise. There's this mention that Avildsen planned back in 2017 to create a whole franchise that would include a TV series. Lambgoat calls it a franchise here. Not much else other than that, though.

As far as every page having an entry, I admittedly do prefer having fewer pages rather than more. Personally I'm the type to recommend a franchise or series page as opposed to individual pages for films and whatnot, although that's not really an option here since the film and TV series seem to be independently notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

Shoe0nHead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. She has received some brief mentions due to her roles in promoting conspiracy theories about Balenciaga[54] and tweeting about online influencer dramas, but has not been relevant enough to get multiple sources providing her WP:SIGCOV. Maybe this page could be merged to Balenciaga#Child advertising controversy.

• [55][56][57] Very brief mentions of the subject, little to no original commentary about Lapine herself.
• [58] Only one paragraph worth of original commentary about Lapine.
• [59] No original commentary about Lapine, the article only describes her opinions about someone else
• [60] Unreliable, apparent content-mill source. It presents no meaningful original commentary on Lapine, beyond a single sentence introduction of who she is.
• [61] An WP:INTERVIEW where Lapine talks about herself and Trump supporters, this source is not WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject when it comes to the statements made about her. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article can be moved to the draft namespace and get cleaned up? I'm not incredibly familiar with that process but given that the article is about a public figure who some may consider significant, it may make more sense than completely deleting it. In my opinion, it makes the most sense to convert the article into a stub and remove the unreliable sources. Azeelea (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

Peter Thiel (cross-country skier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A 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]

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

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

Propose deleting or redirecting to Caedrel per WP:ORG and WP:NSPORT. Los Ratones does have coverage in reliable sources focused on esports, such as Esports Illustrated (a subsidiary of Sports Illustrated), The Esports Insider, Esports News UK, and Esports.gg, but the coverage does not establish a claim to notability.

An organisation being popular because of its owner (Caedrel) and players' fanbase does not speak to the notability of the organisation, but to the owner and players. Being the first professional / semi-professional team to be allowed to live stream practice games ('scrims') is not an incredibly notable element even within just the purview of League of Legends esports.

The team itself has not yet accomplished anything notable, winning a tier-three tournament recently (NLC) and possibly a tier-two tournament in the coming weeks (EMEA Masters). General popularity driven by its owner and players does not equate to standalone notability, but probably does warrant a mention in the owner's (primarily) and players' articles. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Yue🌙 21:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very fair point. I completely agree with the proposal. Labratscientist (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, sports teams, and especially esports teams are not covered under WP:NSPORT.

The sheer amount of coverage and fanfare from esports journals is unprecedented for a team this new(with no prior continuity) and playing at this level. Even in the linked articles, specifically the one from esports.gg, there are claims of notability here:

"Los Ratones revitalized a small league"

"It's not an understatement that Caedrel and his team saved the NLC as a whole,"

"it's undeniable that Los Ratones brought some changes to the esports industry's business model"

Just two days ago Dimitri Pascaluta of TheScore Esports stated

"Los Ratones are basically single-handedly revitalizing western League"

And he's made similar statements in the past published by TheScore Esports such as

"Los Ratones are changing competitive League"

"For us western fans, (Los Ratones) is the best thing to happen to League of legends since 2019"

I can find other examples if wanted about prominent LoL journalists or prominent figures in the LoL pro scene espousing LR's significance if wanted. If the issue is poor sourcing, that is not grounds for deletion. The esports.gg article you linked passes the criteria in WP:SIRS and I can easily find others such as this one from SI. Otherwise, I fail to see how LR doesn't qualify as notable per WP:ORG.

I agree that neither winning a minor tournament, popularizing scrim streaming, having several high profile members within the scene, having a large fanbase, nor simply recieving coverage from reputable journals on their own constitute notability for Los Ratones, but surely the sum of the team's contributions to professional LoL do. LR get vastly more media coverage than most teams, media coverage that mentions the significance of specifically the team, and while if the popularity of the team were simply a result of Caedrel, then the proposal to move the LR page to a section on the Caedrel page would have merit, but that's an inaccurate assertion. TheBausFFS is the second biggest English language LoL streamer(behind Caedrel), Rekkles is one of the most popular European pros even just half a year ago having been on stage lifting the worlds 2024 trophy with the rest of T1, and Nemesis also has had a very prominent following for years. Should each of them, who have all espoused LR as being so personally significant to them, and each have brought their own audience to LR have a "Los Ratones" section in their pages?

The sheer amount of references to LR in otherwise unrelated LoL broadcasts and online discussions should reinforce the need that a Wikipedia article exist for it. It's already clear from the past 5 months that LR's influence isn't just tied to any specific event or person, and while it's exceptional for organizations of this kind to meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article within such little time, in this case, I argue the criteria is met. Bausen Slaw (talk) 00:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment of Los Ratones' claim to notability. Popularity != notability. A lot of personalities are well-known and covered in their respective niches, but they don't have a claim to fame aside from being popular. Opinions and praise, even from relevant people in the scene, are irrelevant to this discussion.

My point was that Los Ratones does have coverage in the esports scene, but it's within the background of the articles' larger discussions of the owner (Caedrel) or players, or in one article's case, Doublelift. Los Ratones, the organisation / team itself, has not achieved or done anything notable; the actions you highlighted were decisions made by Caedrel. Accordingly, the sources we gave aren't focused on what the organisation did but what Caedrel did with his organisation; i.e. Los Ratones is covered because Caedrel is covered.

Therefore, the notability is inherited from Caedrel and the topic is better suited in Caedrel's article if retained in some capacity. As a standalone topic, the team has one title in a tier-three tournament, possibly a title in a tier-two tournament in the near future, and its biggest achievement outside of competition is starting the trend of having its practice games live streamed. I argue that's not enough for standalone notability. Yue🌙 03:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hinkler Hall of Aviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

a 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]

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

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

I am 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 [62], nothing in the Getty ULAN [63] 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 [64], [65] and was the subject of a magazine article here [66]. 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, [67], and [68], one of Curating from A to Z [69] (to which Z to A is the sequel), one of Life in your head [70], 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]

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

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

Nonnotable 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]

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

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

The subject 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]

Greater Church of Lucifer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable fringe organization. Lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. There is a small quantity of local media coverage, but it seems to be mainly about local events. Some hits on Google books, but those that are not self-published works refer to an older group of the same name during the 1960s, not this 21-century church. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyerise (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Paganism, and Texas. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 17:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For those wondering about the article deleted by the prior AFD discussion, as I was: Yes, it's the same subject, but the article is different, and also differently sourced. It's also a very similar nomination rationale, which is only to be expected if circumstances with available sourcing have not changed. Uncle G (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article of Luciferianism and Michael W. Ford mention this group. The Luciferian group in question has garnered not only local but also national media attention on two distinct occasions: (1) the inauguration of their Satanic church in Texas, which incited significant local protests from Christians, resulting in a modicum of national coverage; and (2) the conversion of one of their prominent leaders to Christianity, a development that has been extensively publicized by a Christian ministry with which he is affiliated. So, the article has some value historically. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources in the article all appear to be Houston-local. Please list the in-depth national coverage you assert exists. Also under (2), we can't use affiliated sources, are there third-party sources covering that? If not, it's irrelevant. Also please note that the above editor is the recreator of the deleted article. Skyerise (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, the fact that other articles include cited content about the subject does not support it being notable enough for a standalone article, so that's not a valid argument against deletion. Skyerise (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There are several sources covered by international media like CBN, ABC etc. Also there's The Huffington Post. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the ABC citation is to the local Houston station page. That doesn't mean the coverage was national. And the HuffPost article adds nothing new, it simply summarizes the local coverage and links to it. This is all reporting on an event, specifically the Christian protest against the church, not in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am fixing the article now using more reliable sources. I fix a lot of articles at AfD but this one actually just flat out wasn't ready for mainspace. A bunch of claims were made about living people that weren't backed up by the sources cited in the footnotes. (Where did the information actually come from?) Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The best move would have been to draftify. Now that I've started fixing it I will try to finish. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:38, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- the church has three pages in Massimo Introvigne's social history of satanism. That alone is sufficient to pass the GNG. It's also discussed in many other scholarly works on contemporary satanism, which you can see with a simple gbook search. Not least among these is Olivia Cejvan's whole article on the church found in the OUP book Satanism: A Reader — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Bit of Love (Kesha song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSONG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails 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. [71] 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]