Purge server cache

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

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

Does not meet any notability guidelines and was created by an editor with an COI Bender550 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Bender550 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The Fortune source seems to be reliable, secondary, independent, significant coverage (though the article previously sourced quotes from one of the co-creators as being from Fortune, which I edited out). The Axios source seems like trivial coverage of a deal with Adidas and a brief summary of what the show is. To meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT, it would need multiple good sources. Truthnope (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Summer (poem) (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)

notability; doesn't warrant a seperate article. one of many promotional articles created by a blocked user. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, nothing is notable about this poem. References do not adequately support GNG. 2405:201:404B:A3:ACAB:9E06:2F5F:CACB (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Both 1 & 2 references are not considered reliable and there is not enough detailed coverage from reliable sources for the subject to meet GNG.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Some coverage: International Journal of Indology paper on the poem, several paragraphs in this paper, an article in "Notions, a peer reviewed journal of English literature", which does not inspire much confidence but does at least claim to be an academic source. It's discussed briefly in this paper in the Journal of South Asian Literature, this book on South Asian Poetry. Obituary by The Hindu, describing the poet as "known for Indian Summer" (as do many other obits) and a blog describing it as "widely anthologized", another as a classic of Indian literature. I strongly suspect the existence of better sources given how the sources I do find seem to treat it as a classic (and a feature of school curriculums). Some of the sources I've linked seem to be somewhat suspicious journals, I haven't carefully evaluated them. May take a stab at improving the article in a bit. Rusalkii (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided !voting opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 16:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have added two scholarly articles devoted to this poem, both also found by Rusalkii. Those, and several paras in another source found by that editor, show that it has "been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the [work] itself", which are grounds for notability in WP:BKCRIT and WP:NSONG. Another criterion for notability in WP:BKCRIT is "is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country", which appears to be the case with this poem. It would be good to have sources verifying that - hopefully editors in India will be able to add them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:30, 8 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, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Maryland county offices elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although sources exist to fill out this article with the relevant candidates and results, I do not believe that these elections meet the general notability guidelines. I cannot find more than passing mentions of these elections in local news. The best in-depth source I could find was this archived voter guide from The Washington Post. Rocfan275 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same notability issues:

2010 Maryland county offices elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018 Maryland county offices elections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rocfan275 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the lot as hardly anything here is a notable race, made obvious by the failure to fill much of the information in. Mangoe (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more opinions for a bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is an autobiography made by User:Hamid Arzulu in 2010. A quick Google search revealed nothing that could show that this person satisfies the notability guidelines. The two sources listed in the article were made by people with a conflict-of-interest to him. Hence I think it should be deleted. Norbillian (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Poetry, Science, and Azerbaijan. Norbillian (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this article was already deleted once, during its first AFD in 2010. — Alien  3
3 3 07:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see evidence of passing WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NACADEMIC. Open to being convinced otherwise though. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Français de Malabo (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)

Could not find third party coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 2 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!} 22:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Roca i Fontané (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:BEFORE shows some mentions in online news, but only incidental coverage, and not enough to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, and Spain. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It does not appear that an adequate BEFORE was done; this person is the subject of independent, reliable-source WP:SIGCOV in WSJ. magazine, the New York Times, the South China Morning Post, Reporter Gourmet, and Tecnovino. A clear pass of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:42, 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!} 22:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Vaezi (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)

A7/ The notability of the individual needs to be reassessed. The sources are not particularly relevant to the person and are merely news coverage. Persia ☘ 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Islam, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy Keep. The OP's nomination rationale is confused at best. WP:A7 is not a criterion of notability but of significance, hence not related to AfD. As for reasons cited, WP:NNC: "the notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles" so the nomination is inadequate. But even if we pretend that we had an adequate nomination: Radio Farda cites the subject as "a prominent administrative figure at the Qom Seminary," responsible in forming the First and Second government of Hassan Rouhani. He's a member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, Academy of Sciences of Iran, and Supreme Leader of Iran’s representative in the Islamic Students Associations in Europe. There are multiple other sources, from The Times, Mehr News Agency, and Tehran Times to name a few. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Xpander (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He is one of thousands of clerics in Iran who have been appointed to a position. The mere mention of his name in an article by Radio Farda, without any further details, does not establish notability. Persia ☘ 10:42, 1 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!} 22:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As one of the 28 members of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, which debates and ratifies bills that are regarded as laws and can only be overruled by Iran's Supreme Leader, he has presumed notability per WP:NPOL. His other positions are also significant. I note that two sources give additional names, spelled variously 'Hojat-ol-Islam Ahmad Vaezi' [6] and 'Hujjat al-Islam Ahmad Vaezi' [7]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @RebeccaGreen. Both refer to an honorary title: Hujjat al-Islam, which I'm not sure require mentioning. Xpander (talk) 13:58, 8 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!} 22:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaazhnila (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)

Name page that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT and lacks any evidence of notability whatsoever. The only sources I can find are random baby name websites of questionable reliability. I only bring it to AfD because it was deleted via PROD back in 2013, and so is ineligible for that. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources are not reliable enough to support passage on WP:GNG, and this has no value to be retained as a list of people named Yaazhnila since there are no biographies of people with this name on en-wiki. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KCKQ (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.

Defunct radio station WVQR should also be deleted per same reason. Chuterix (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Puerto Rico, and Nevada. Chuterix (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While both are short-lived defunct radio stations that probably do fail the GNG, I don't think bundling a Puerto Rico station with a Nevada station is a sufficiently common bond; they should be separate nominations. As it currently stands I cannot really give a proper opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak procedural keep: I figured I'd more "formally" make it clear that continuing this as a bundled nomination does not seem correct and these should be renominated separately. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 1 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!} 22:30, 2 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!} 22:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Face-Off (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, has only two sources, neither independent. I can't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Truthnope (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Photography, and Singapore. Truthnope (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Bowl (Alaska) (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 claim to notability and fails WP:GNG. Non-notable series of four college games. Not a "bowl" game in the traditional sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage does exist, see this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Declined prod. The added source (the only non database one) is just a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. The only coverage I could find is a lab manager of the same name in Sierra Leone, it could be him but doesn't really add to notability. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 9 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 Sierra Leone. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that subject qualified for the Olympics in three different events, which is exceptional for a Sierra Leonean athlete. Finding sources is notoriously difficult for these sorts of athletes, but it's clear that Sierra Leonean newspapers do exist and were operational during the 1980s when Massallay would have been covered. The WP:Verifiable information we have indicates that coverage is out there, but it likely isn't digitized. I would at least attempt making a contact request out to some of those papers before !voting delete. --Habst (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is about a largely unremarkable company. The media coverage mostly relates to business typical events (such as an IPO), some lawsuits, and not the company itself. I note that this article includes the 2024 arrest of a Lifestance employee who was charged with distributing child pornography, which really has nothing to do with Lifestance and makes me wonder what part that case plays in creating this article. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Medicine. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article plainly meets the NP:GNG criteria, as well as the WP:NCORP criteria. As of right now here is a summary of sources:

Notability

Source
Bloomberg News	5 articles that cover lifestance in a non-trivial, in-depth manner, in an international news periodical.
Forbes	1 article that covers lifestance in a non-trivial, in-depth manner, in an international news periodical.
Behavioral Health News	4 articles that cover lifestance in a non-trivial, in-depth manner, in an industry trade publication.
PE Hub	1 articles that cover lifestance in a non-trivial, in-depth manner, in a private equity trade publication.
Fiercehealthcare.com	1 article that cover lifestance in a non-trivial, in-depth manner, in an industry trade publication.
Trivial mentions	1 NYT included 1 Connecticut News 12 included

• Additionally, WP:ORGSIG states, in part, When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. An organization that provides 2 million mental health appointments per quarter, annualized to 8 million per year plainly has a significant effect on society.
• Lastly, what is your point about the long island therapist? If your point is that the material doesn't belong in the article, we can discuss that on the article’s talk page, it doesn’t require a deletion. Otherwise I'm not sure what you might mean by that.

Delectopierre (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we disagree about what "in-depth" means. My point about the inclusion of the arrest of an employee for distribution of child porn is that it has no relevance to the company itself. It is just one of a number of "bad" things that you included in the article. Four of those Bloomberg articles are about negative events (lawsuits, falling stock prices). It seems like it gets more press coverage for typical business things like that than it does for its actual activities. If it was really having an effect on society, it would get written about for that, not for its stock price going down. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Kobza Workshop (film) (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 short film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and books (such as reviews by professional film critics, evidence of notable film awards, production coverage, and the like.)
But this just states that the film exists, makes no claim of significance that would earn it a presumption of notability in the absence of adequate sourcing, and cites only a single directory entry for referencing rather than any evidence of GNG-building coverage.
Simple existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Ukraine. Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsonarism (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)

Hamjamguy (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but placed the intended subpage contents on the talk page instead. Their rationale follows:

Page was previously nominated for deletion on May 1, 2018, and based on what I can gather was deleted until November 2024. The article consists of mostly non-English sources that do not qualify as WP:NPOV. Unless substantial effort on procuring less-biased and neutral English language sources is done, I believe the article should be deleted once again.
— User:Hamjamguy 17:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This is entirely procedural on my part and I offer no opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcquidditch I think that since you opened this Afd you are supporting the claim "non-English sources that do not qualify as WP:NPOV". I count 42 sources and would like to know what "do not qualify" since, in fact, the mostly of sources are peer-reviewed scientific papers and, secondly, mainstream press sources. The claim for deletion is only a WP:IDL without support in WP:DEL. Please, close this nonsense. Ixocactus (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I again reiterate that I am neutral in this, have no actual opinion here, and that Hamjamguy should still be considered the actual nominator for all intents and purposes. I only opened this because I noticed a half-baked nomination in the log (a subpage listed but then completely nonexistent); this was largely procedural, but should not be considered to be an endorsement of the nominator's comments. While a response from Hamjamguy would be appreciated (which is why I am pinging him again), I myself have not reviewed any of the sources, have no intention (or, in the case of the non-English sources, realistic ability) to, and cannot comment as to their neutrality. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank @Wcquidditch for helping me to actually make this AfD, I followed the instructions as best I could but clearly still did something wrong. But @Ixocactus don't distort my words, the sources aren't neutral because they aren't in English (ridiculous thing to not only allege but also believe, I am a fluent speaker of Portuguese living in Brazil); they are not neutral because a large portion of them (particularly alleging that Bolsonarism is fascist or neo-fascist) ignore the facts of what not only the key founder believe (Bolsonaro) but also what he did during his tenure. Is Bolsonaro "far right"? I think that is a fair assertion. But fascists don't allow under any circumstances political opposition, and Bolsonaro clearly lost (albeit much to his distaste). To be honest, and also to reiterate, if the article were a more neutral presentation of facts; I would oppose this very AfD that I proposed. But, with the lack of neutrality of some/most of the sources (most of which directly translated from pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsonarismo), at the current state and the history of this article I believe it warrants deletion. Hamjamguy (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per Ixocactus. The page has plenty of neutral and unbiased sources. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 23:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I invite you to look at the Twitter page of the author of the "neutral source" that alleges Bolsonaro is a fascist. Will probably require Google Translate, but the author (Leandro Pereira Gonçalves) clearly is ideologically opposed to Bolsonaro, therefore uses the cloak of academia to disseminate his political beliefs to sources such as Wikipedia as "neutral" and "valid". This example is not the only one on this page. For what I believe to be the third time, if this article were to include easily verifiable English language sources, I would myself oppose this article's AfD, and would prefer it to remove these charged, controversial statements such as that Bolsonaro is "fascist", as almost half of Brazil's population and most English media outlets listed as viable per WP:NPOV would beg to differ, simply and fairly labeling him as "right wing" or "far right". Hamjamguy (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ixocactus, but the article still includes some biased sources though very few, such as CartaCapital (cited in the opinion section) and Brasil de Fato, both of which have a left-wing bias. It would be best to remove them. Cattos^💭 23:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if I, the creator of this AfD am allowed to have any further opinion, but if I am, I would like to further clarify my reasons for nominating for Deletion. As a test, I removed the tag Neo-fascist as well as the two clearly biased "academic" sources, yet not even 2 minutes later I was reverted and accused of "not giving a good enough reason to remove academic sources". Therefore, my ideal scenario of reforming the article around NPOV sources seems even more unlikely to occur than I originally thought. Hamjamguy (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The personality cult movement of President Bolsonaro called Bolsonarismo is real, but the partial tone of the article as it is now is passable of a WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sajan (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. Is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Fails WP:NBIO, just as it has every other time the article has been created. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Fifth nomination??? Salt the article and also Draft:Rizwan Sajan after that s (inevitably) deleted. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce A. Manning (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 to meet WP:NPROF notability on its face; not a named professor or other criterion. Has been tagged as deficient for over ten years, and not substantially improved in the past decade. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Environment, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1 and high-cited publications on Google Scholar [8]. But it's weak because I couldn't find much else. He appears to be the chair of his department but that doesn't count as a notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Ruth Ben-Ghiat (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 named chair or anything for WP:NPROF. The current "named" position is a temporary visting role not a faculty role as expected for NPROF. None of the sources here are independent, reliable, and providing significant coverage of her. The RS use her opinion on Trump but that does not make her notable. Czarking0 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that the top editor to the page has been blocked for sockpuppeting. User:JmsDoug Czarking0 (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nomination points out only that she does not meet one very specific WP:PROF criterion, #C5. But notability need not achieved through meeting that criterion when others are available. In this case, she has many published reviews of her books, easily passing both WP:AUTHOR and (because they are in-depth independent reliable sources about her work) WP:GNG. As for "top editor" JmsDoug: that editor's contributions were limited to the infobox and the paragraph about the visiting position at the University of Hawaii. The article creation itself was long ago by someone else. So the suggestion that this is a foundationally tainted article turns out to be, if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This does not only talk about [[WP:NPROF]. I specifically stated why she does not meet WP:GNG. I just reread WP:AUTHOR and I am not seeing how she passes that either. if not disingenous, then at least spectacularly false Dude seriously? I googled for additional sources about her and I do not see any that are sig cov, independent, reliable. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None so blind as will not see.

  But to lead you more directly to what you have not seen: WP:AUTHOR 4(c) "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". 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".

  The many published reviews constitute both "significant critical attention" and "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". They are indeed about the subject in the sense that they are entirely about the subject's work, the thing she is notable for, just as we would expect significant coverage of an athlete to be about their athletic accomplishments or significant coverage of a musician to be about their musical performances. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are enough reviews about her works that meets NAUTHOR. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and I'd say a speedy one at that. Several books with multiple reviews in reliable independent sources means that she passes WP:AUTHOR, and her citation record [9] looks strong as well (five papers with over a hundred citations, the top one with over 800 citations and an h-index of 21), almost certainly meeting WP:PROF#1. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok this one probably changes my mind. Czarking0 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajlukshmee Debee Bhattacharya (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)

Apart from the cited links, I couldn't find much info on the web supporting notability. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Her name is often given just as Rajlukshmee Debee (same birth year established here). It looks like she got an obituary in Indian Literature. On the one hand that is kinda brief and by a friend (Debjani Chatterjee), but on the other it was published in a significant journal. here she is described as "a major voice in Indian poetry and women's writing". There's a dearth of coverage but some indications of significance. Will keep looking. This and this maybe have some review content? It looks like The Touch Me Not Girl got a couple of reviews ([10], [11]). I also imagine there might be more coverage in Bengali. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Bengali version is a translation of the English article. She has some mentions but not enough to establish notability. Herinalian (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 13:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some info and a reference, and will continue looking for more. Like Eddie891, I think having an obit in Indian Literature and being described as "a major voice in Indian poetry and women's writing" in My Birth Was Not In Vain: Selected Poems by Seven Bengali Women are good indications that she is notable and that there is more coverage. She published many poems in Bengali, and there is likely to be coverage in Bengali language sources (not Bengali Wikipedia), and other languages of the subcontinent. Frustratingly, many of the English language sources which come up in a Google Books source are snippet view only. I hope someone with access to relevant hardcopy sources will add more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarzeena, Queen of Kong Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the 2 reviews on the German WP might be considered expert SPS. I will try to improve this. Worst case scenario: a redirect to Fred_Olen_Ray#Television(listed there) is a standard WP:ATD when the director is notable and the film released, with some notable features (Evan Stone, version of Tarzan, infamously "bad" film) -Mushy Yank. 19:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This fails WP:GNG. There are a lack of citations that would support the existence of this article besides a couple of reviews. desmay (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 16:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Jaisal (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)

Being a mayor does not make a person inherently notable. Fails NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 14:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, India, and Uttarakhand. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Courtesy linking to WP:NPOL for people. Looked at the sources, and all three (as of Mar 9 2025) essentially just say that she won the election without really saying anything about her, so I wouldn't count them as significant coverage. That said Haridwar is apparently the 2nd largest city in the state, at ~200,000, so it's at least not tiny. Given she just got elected, though, maybe it needs some more time -- has anyone does a source search in Hindi? Mrfoogles (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: City administrators are not inherently notable per NPOL#1. The mayor of Aba, Nigeria (which comprise of more than 4 big LGAs would not be considered inherently notable). Sources are not sufficient to establish NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Mamgain (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)

Being a mayor does not inherently make a person notable. GrabUp - Talk 14:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, India, and Uttarakhand. Shellwood (talk) 14:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree this article should be deleted as the subject fails WP:GNG. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: City administrators are not inherently notable per NPOL#1. Sources are not sufficient to establish NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Prodded because it "does not achieve the purpose of a disambiguation page. All entries are PTMs of species whose specific epithets are "andrewsae" but are not known as said name by itself." The author was not familiar with WP:PARTIAL and contested the PROD. I think the deletion rationale should hold up as these pages seem to rarely survive AfD. — Anonymous 14:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. — Anonymous 14:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This will only ever be a partial match, and unlikely search terms to boot. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Henrik Tönjum (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; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Norway, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable subject; I am unable to find any significant coverage, or anything other than mentions in listings or statistics. No references with significant coverage appear to exist for this subject. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 10:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found mentions of him in Swedish and Danish newspapers, but it seems to be routine match coverage: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] These two[19][20] appear more focused on him but I'm not sure about the source. I'm leaning delete based on what I see here but it's worth noting that Swedish/Danish sources don't tend to index like some other places; I had to search those newspapers manually for his name. Zzz plant (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These three, [21][22][23], may also be more than routine but I cannot assess properly them due to logins. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Musician how doesn't appear to be notable in his own right, but only in the context of KT Tunstall. Seaweed (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I can't find any significant coverage for his musical career. Truthnope (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article has been tagged for multiple issues and article creator is suspected to be UPE. There seems to be a lack of independent in-depth sources for the company under its current name and former name that satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. I see Research-Live seems to cover this firm a lot but the actual content seems to be non-authored routine news that look more like press releases. Imcdc Contact 13:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and New Jersey. Imcdc Contact 13:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Adding findsources for former name below AllyD (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hugo Leufvenius (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; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Not as good SNG-wise, but seems to meet GNG with sustained coverage: [24] [25] [26] [] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Geschichte (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article provides basic information about his ice hockey career but lacks in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to establish strong notability--LusikSnusik (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not discussing the article. We are discussing the sources we are able to find. Geschichte (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not all of Geschichte's sources are great, but there are enough to meet GNG, regardless of the current state of the article. Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TRB Sina (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)

Previously sent to draft at Draft:TRB Sina so no point in sending this one to draft. In my WP:BEFORE search, I can only find Deezer, SoundCloud and other self-published junk. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be considered for deletion because is contains valid and accurate information about the subject.He is fully noticed on google as a Ghanaian afrobeat Musician as my research found on his google knowledge panel and social media platforms like facebook, instagram and x and all over music streaming platforms with veryfied profiles including Apple music and spotify. NelsonWrites001 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable sources. I remain firmly in favour of deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should not be considered for deletion because it contains valid and accurate information about the subject.He is fully noticed on google as a Ghanaian afrobeat Musician as my research found on his google knowledge panel and social media platforms like facebook, instagram and x in other articles and all over music streaming platforms with veryfied profiles including Apple music and spotify.

Obidur Rahman (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 singer. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SINGER and the subject of this article is not a notable individual. He is primarily a TikToker/YouTuber but does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people. The article also incorrectly describes him as a musician, but there is no evidence that he meets the notability criteria for musicians. Additionally, the references provided appear to be paid or promotional news articles.

For example, one article states: "RobinRafan has the ability to deliver creative storytelling content and has proven herself to be a force to be reckoned with." (Here, "herself" is incorrect, suggesting possible copy-paste or automated content). see here Furthermore, these news sources mention all of his platform profiles and account names, which is unusual for genuine news articles. This strongly indicates *a lack of independent, reliable sources*.

Additionally, the article appears to have a conflict of interest WP:COI as it seems to have been created by someone closely related to the subject. Based on these factors, the article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and should be deleted.SRL1122 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another Note: Obidur Rahman and RobinRafan are the same person. In October last year, an article titled RobinRafan was deleted due to concerns, including a clear conflict of interest (COI). Now, instead of recreating the article under the same name, a new article has been created under Obidur Rahman, attempting to establish notability as a musician. See the archived deletion discussion here and See the archived argument

@Ravensfire, since you have previously observed the earlier article, your input in this discussion could be valuable. Feel free to share your thoughts if you’d like. SRL1122 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - content creators are far from automatically notable, and I don't see any good sources. Whether it's a fan or an intern, the result is the same: this is an SPA who hasn't made any edits since August 2024 other than this article. Bearian (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As far as notability is concerned, the subject won at least two notable awards Babisas Award and Dhallywood Film and Music Awards. He has also been covered in depth in reliable and notable news sites like, Jago News 241, Dhaka Tribune 2, The Bangladesh Today 3, Janakantha 4, The Daily Observer (Bangladesh) 5and more. Which makes the subject at least pass the WP:NBASIC. He has also been covered for his Album from The Bangladesh Today 6as well for the books he authored byThe Daily Observer (Bangladesh) 9.Instant History (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While the subject has received some media coverage, the available sources do not provide significant, independent, and in-depth coverage required to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards WP:GNG.

  1. Not a Musician: Obidur Rahman is primarily a content creator, not a musician. The awards he received, such as the Babisas Award and Dhallywood Film and Music Awards, were for content creation, not for musical achievements. If content creation alone were enough for notability, then many other content creators in Bangladesh would also qualify.

  2. Awards: The listed awards do not appear to be major national or international honors with extensive media coverage. Winning an award does not automatically establish notability unless it is widely recognized and covered in-depth by independent sources WP:ANYBIO.

  3. Media Coverage: The sources cited, including Jago News 24, Dhaka Tribune, and The Bangladesh Today, mainly provide brief mentions rather than substantial analysis. Many of these articles seem promotional rather than independent journalistic coverage, which does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for significant coverage WP:SIGCOV.

  4. Books and Albums: Publishing books or music alone does not establish notability WP:AUTHOR, WP:MUSICBIO. There is no evidence of critical reviews or independent discussions proving their impact or significance.

  Additionally, after this article was nominated for deletion, a new article was published on March 5, 2025, in The Bangladesh Today, seemingly to reinforce notability. However, this article does not provide neutral or independent coverage. Moreover, the reliability of The Bangladesh Today itself is questionable, as it does not appear to be a highly reputable or widely recognized news source.

  On the same day, user Minilikintern added this as a reference. Instant History, I would kindly request you to review this news article and share your thoughts after reading it.

  Given these factors, the subject does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines WP:GNG or the specific criteria for musicians and authors WP:MUSICBIO, WP:AUTHOR.SRL1122 (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For now, let’s ignore WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO. Let’s concentrate on WP:NBASIC, which states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." As we can see, most of the sources (probably more than five) have Wikipedia pages themselves, and the person is clearly the subject of the articles, rather than just receiving a trivial mention.

• Regarding your claim that the awards are not notable, I believe this is incorrect. The fact that these awards have dedicated Wikipedia pages indicates their significance. According to WP:ANYBIO, the subject has received well-known and significant awards (e.g., Babisas Award and Dhallywood Film and Music Awards). If you think these awards are not notable and significant, you may challenge them for deletion as well.

• As for the reference you pointed out, you are correct that it is written in a promotional manner, and we need to remove it. I have also cleaned up two more additional references that were promotional.

• The COI issue with the creator seems obvious, as you mentioned. However, I think we are here to discuss whether the subjects meet the notability requirements or not.

• And also I would appreciate it if you could explain how you became such an expert in sorting pages for deletion discussions while having only 25 edits. Instant History (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify a few key points:

  1. Misinterpretation of Notability

  According to WP:NBASIC, notability requires significant coverage from independent and reliable sources.

  Simply being mentioned in multiple sources does not establish notability.

  Most of the cited sources provide only trivial mentions rather than in-depth coverage.

  Some sources, such as The Bangladesh Today, are not considered highly reliable mainstream media outlets.

  2. Source Analysis

  Out of 12 references, 10 explicitly describe him as a content creator.

  While some sources casually mention "musical artist," the primary emphasis remains on his identity as a content creator.

  Only two articles focus on his music—one from Dhaka Tribune and another from The Bangladesh Today.

  The Bangladesh Today itself lacks strong credibility as a reliable source.

  3. Awards and Misrepresentation

  The subject received these awards as a content creator, not as a musician.

  If winning such awards as a content creator is enough to establish notability, then at least 10 other content creators in Bangladesh should also be considered notable, yet they are not.

  4. Attempt to Fabricate Notability

  As I previously mentioned, new articles were published after the AfD nomination to strengthen claims of notability.

  Dhaka Tribune originally published an article on June 27, 2023, explicitly identifying him as a content creator.

  After the deletion nomination, on March 6, 2025, the same article was updated to present him as a "musician".

  This suggests a deliberate attempt to manipulate notability, which contradicts Wikipedia’s principles.

  5. COI (Conflict of Interest) & Neutrality Concerns

  You have already acknowledged that some references were promotional and have been removed. This further supports the argument that the article was created with a biased intent.

  Wikipedia does not establish notability based on self-promotional or questionable sources.

  6. Questioning My Edit Count

  The number of edits a user has is irrelevant to the validity of their arguments.

  Wikipedia values policy-based discussions over edit count metrics.

  Evaluating AfD cases does not require thousands of edits—just an understanding of Wikipedia’s guidelines. Thank you SRL1122 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SRL1122, ChatGPT, unfortunately for you, doesn't have any understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator and Bearian. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This was an interesting one to go through. As others noted, there's a couple of possible claims for notability, including WP:NSINGER, WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. As a singer, I don't see how they meet the NSINGER criteria. No significant awards and nothing in the article to support the criteria there. Sure, singles have been released and gotten WP:NEWSORGINDIA breathless articles, with bylines like Tribune Desk, Online Desk, Web Desk, and written in an over-the-top promotional style that would make any PR agent satisfied. Hallmarks of paid/sponsored articles and journalism. And that basically summarizes nearly every source in this article. So this really gets into are the awards considered "major awards" that the criteria is looking for. Several of the awards (Babisas Award, Dhallywood Film & Music Awards) have been inconsistent, skipping years. That's a big red flag. The others seem more niche and not what I'd term "major", especially with the PR coverage in the sources. A couple of good sources, not paid/sponsored, not churnalism, not NEWSORGINDIA red flags, that have significant coverage of Rahman are really what's needed and I'm not seeing them here.

NOTE - I was pinged to this discussion due to the discussions around this person on the Simple English wikipedia where I participated ( and . The article there (and an early draft here at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Archives/2024#RobinRafan where created by an editor with a declared COI). Ravensfire (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Alomair (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 are plenty of sources that carry a fleeting mention of his involvement in some extradition cases but none which treat the subject in depth that would establish notability. BEFORE (in English) reveals much of the same. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as the author of the article I probably oughtn't to vote but regardless of the current depth of coverage (which isn't bad) I am reasonably confident that there remain other sources which I have not yet located, either in English or in Arabic. The BBC News article refers to some of them: "We discovered news articles highlighting instances of Mr Alomair helping those left homeless by a hurricane in Florida, for example. But we also discovered his assistance had extended to more controversial situations." I couldn't find anything on the former incident but it looks like something's out there. RexSueciae (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Virginia and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to fail anybio as there are not sources with enough depths of independent coverage and interest. Unicorbia (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This page appears to be a mixture of unsourced information, original research, and potentially self-promotion.

• The primary source for the page, and for the majority of its life the only source, is a Time Magazine article entitled Festivals: Romantic Revival. The article was published in 1969 and is merely a review of a particular event held that year which featured Romantic music (and which was not even called "Romantic Revival"). The Time article contains no claims about broader historical trends of Romantic music experiencing a revival in the cultural consciousness starting in the 1960s, as the Wikipedia page does. In fact, far from suggesting that this 1969 festival is the beginning of a coming cultural shift, the author is openly derisive of the Romantic music played at the festival.

• The text about Ates Orga's championing of the revival, added to the article several years after its initial creation, is supported only by an accompanying reference to a 1977 article written by Orga, and not by any independent source positing the notability of Orga's activities.

• The text about the Romantic Revival Orchestra, added to the article quite recently, appears to be entirely self-promotion. No source is provided other than a link to the website of the entity described.

Note that the page has existed on Wikipedia for almost 20 years and as such may have influenced sources written after 2007, if not in any particulars of fact, then at least in the claim of the existence, naming, and notability of a "Romantic Revival" in classical music in the 1960s.

(The above rationale was adapted from an AfD request I filed last year that wasn't taken up.) — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and History. — flamingspinach | (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it doesn't look like the sourcing is at all there to support the idea that this was a musical movement. Since the article says Harold C. Schonberg was a champion of it in the New York Times I searched the full archive for that paper and as near as I can tell he never used the phrase, and the paper itself only used the phrase talking about other eras, or just casually saying that there's been a revival in interest in this kind of music lately, without saying anything about it being a specific movement. This article appears to be advancing an original argument the sources don't make. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are academic sources that discuss the existence of a Romantic Revival though this article doesn't include them.[34][35][36] This might be a case of WP:TNT. desmay (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is plenty of information about a "romantic revival" in literature in the 19th century, which is what your source #2 is about, and probably what source #1 is about as well though I don't have access to it. But that doesn't support this article, which is about a revival of romantic music in the mid 20th century.

  The third article you linked is not an academic source - it's an editorial column from a paleoconservative monthly magazine with "close ties to the neo-Confederate movement", according to its Wikipedia article. It was also written a full 10 years after Romantic Revival was first published on Wikipedia, for whatever that's worth. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources have been provided to warrant an article, even of the current quality of the article is low. Cortador (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you list some of those sources? I've mentioned why I think the ones currently included in the article don't support the statements made in the article or are otherwise unsuitable. If you're referring to the comment above yours, I've addressed those as well in a reply. — flamingspinach | (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Leodo (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. Only databases and primary sources added. Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT LibStar (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWBC (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. Article created by seemingly WP:SPA and has been tagged for notability issues for years.

From what I can see ignoring press releases, the remaining coverage doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE. Routine stuff like hiring/firing news, reporting some acquisitions without further details , the company getting a rating or some non-notable award etc. There is some coverage on employment lawsuits but the focus is on the lawsuits rather than the company and per WP:ILLCON cannot be used to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

False document (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)

Confused and confusing. Unclear whether it is referring to fiction or reality. The only reference is to a Scottish Gothic academic paper. The examples are all well covered elsewhere, and the general themes are covered in the propaganda, forgery and hoax articles, and epistolary novel for fiction. There’s a long history of debate and confusion on the talk page. It went to AfD in 2012, and doesn’t appear to be any better now. See also false documentation. Blackballnz (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Crime. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:01, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of vegans (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 list fails WP:DATED, which advises, for text that is likely to go out of date to be verifiable, statements should be dated. As evidenced by the talk page's list of former vegans, and some research, following a vegan diet is not an immutable characteristic (such as Latino or profession, which Wikipedia treats as immutable). I don't doubt many BLPs listed are no longer vegan, even as we claim they are.

For the list to be verifiable, an extra column would have to be added, "as of". This would contradict the strong claim made in the title, which implies "currently a vegan" rather than "was ever a vegan", as seen by the removal of entries when people are no longer identified as vegan. This point was only cursorily addressed in the last deletion discussion, which came to no-consensus. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is well sourced. It is true that in the past there were celebrities on the list who were not vegan. Myself and another user have fixed this problem by removing them from the article list. On the talk-page there is a long list of former vegans and mistaken vegans [37]. I am not convinced we need to start adding dates when people became vegan on the list. Adding WP:RS is good enough. If users want to know more about their veganism they can click on the biographies of the person and read their article. Veg Historian (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thankful for your comment. I'll just note once on "the article is well sourced" that, as an example, the source listed is an RS for the claim that Mark Browning was a vegan as of 2010, but it is not a RS for the claim that he is a vegan now, per the reasoning in the nom. Sources are considered reliable/not reliable for a given statement. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe the criteria you are setting for this list is too high. This is a simple list of vegans. If a person is not vegan anymore and we have an WP:RS for that we just remove their name from the list. If a reliable source says someone is vegan and we have no further updates on that then we leave them on the list. I am not sure why you are trying to over complicate this list. It is true that many vegan celebrities seeking fame and fortune give up their veganism but they are mostly doing it as a fad and not for ethical reasons. Once we have newspaper material or interviews about this documenting when they gave up veganism; we just remove them from the list. We do not add dates. Myself and another user have removed many of these from the list in the past.

  Adding specific dates is just overcomplicating things. I have not seen this criteria suggested for other lists. Are you also going to be suggesting next that we add specific dates to List of animal rights advocates saying when they became activists? I believe this is unnecessary. As stated if someone is not vegan anymore and we have a source on that; we just remove them from the list. Veg Historian (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To use your example, List of animal rights advocates does not require dating the attribute (e.g. as of 2024 they were an animal rights advocate) because it is not "likely to go out of date" as WP:DATED states. The reason I say this is likely to go out of date is because a) the long list on the talk page shows a lot of people come in and out of veganism (and sources probably won't exist for a lot of them doing that: for BLP articles to avoid error and for verifiability we date these statements) and b) the research I mention in the nom. I'll leave this as my last comment. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 11:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but preserve only verifiable entries. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This list provides a valuable resource, showcasing notable individuals who have followed a vegan diet, supported by reliable sources. It's an informative tool, promoting transparency and accuracy. As long as we maintain verifiability and remove individuals who are no longer vegan based on reliable sources, there's no need for added complexity like specific dates. The list serves its purpose of highlighting veganism without overcomplicating the matter, and it remains a useful reference for those interested in the subject. However, I would not be opposed to an extra column for dates, which could be a useful addition to acknowledge those who were vegan for part of their lives or careers, without complicating the core purpose of the list. Either way! MaynardClark (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They do get coverage in reliable sources for being vegan. Dream Focus 18:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am perplexed as to the rationale. The very nature of Wikipedia is that many claims are only factually verifiable within the time-frame of the source. You can literally pull out the date the claim is made (or at least published) by hovering over the reference at the end of the row. This is actually a strength the list has over a category, because the context, the time-frame and the sourcing for the claim can be immediately accessed. At best, the proposer is making a case for making information already in the article a little bit more obvious and accessible, but that is not a deletion rationale. The article is well sourced and satisfies WP:LISTN. Betty Logan (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Betty Logan: I did consider this idea before nominating, that you can simply hover over the source date to get an "as of." I persisted in nominating, however, as I agree with the logic presented in WP:DATED, that this is an issue of verifiability. If a source says Hershey's was the biggest chocolate company as of 2010, and I present such information as "Hershey's is the biggest chocolate company", the claim would fail verification. Omitting "as of 2010" implies a contemporary nature that the source cannot verify. It is not sufficient to simply include the date in the reference. Besides, readers only very rarely look at the sources.

  I considered if a column dating the identifications would resolve this, and decided against it. This is because the list is of people who are currently vegans, seen in the lack of qualification in the title or lede, and in the way people are removed as they cease following the diet/lifestyle. This may be nitpicky, and I wouldn't begrudge the community deeming it so, but if I read a list of people who are currently vegans and a name was included, even dated, I would read this as claiming they are currently vegan, last confirmed on this date. Perhaps this could be worked around with lede text, although structurally I am doubtful.

  Regardless, there's a consensus here to keep. Either my thinking was understood and disagreed with, or I didn't communicate coherently enough to generate understanding. I'll withdraw the AfD when I am back at a computer. If you care to respond to my thinking I'd love to hear on my TP, but I understand if not. Best, Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 20:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sarah Flaum (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 sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. A search for citations only reveals only social media pages and blogs. desmay (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not true. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/25/the-tale-a-wrenching-and-wise-story-about-sexual-abuse allows to verify the role/contribution to a notable production is significant; as do https://filmthreat.com/reviews/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/arts/television/the-tale-hbo-review.html

  Also see https://msmagazine.com/2022/05/24/abortion-add-to-cart-documentary-film-abortion-pills/ -Mushy Yank. 18:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with 2-3 significant roles in notable productions; also probably meets WP:CREATIVE for her work on AMFAD. -Mushy Yank. 15:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fails them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merryhill Schools (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. No indication of importance. One source found (possibly a directory entry)at https://www.cde.ca.govWikipedia but the page does not load. The text looks as if its been listed from a corporate website but I haven't been able to find which one (there are too many). Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merryhill Schools Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had flagged this for Draftification at the very least when it first appeared but on review of WP:BEFORE and the lack of sources provided by the article author, I concur with the nomination. Fails WP:GNG and is probably intended as an advert.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   03:01, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 09:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Mountain (board game) (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: BEFORE finds no sources to suggest notability PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found a second review, in Dragon: [38]. BOZ (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, had trouble verifying, but there might be a review in Sorcerer's Apprentice #9/10 from Flying Buffalo. [39] BOZ (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - In addition to Dragon, there is also a review in Simulacrum #15. I have added content from both reviews, plus additional content about gameplay, plus an image of the box cover. Guinness323 (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sufficient sourcing has been provided. Cortador (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - enough RS has been added to justify notability PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty (Tyler, The Creator 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, coverage only in brief mentions of the album it is from/live performances. jolielover♥talk 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. jolielover♥talk 18:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  keep. WP:BEFORE search found these sources:

  Complex

  Consequence

  B*llboard

  Pitchfork

  NME NO SIGCOV

  Rolling Stone

  All of them (not sure about Complex) are RELIABLE RSES, with some of them having SIGCOV of the song. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  oh shit some of them are from wolf (album) will check the back later) brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  nvm brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 00:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  yeah my stand still stays brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 03:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:NSONG, Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. 3/6 of these sources are album reviews, NME has it as a passing mention, Consequence also has it as a passing mention (in the context that Earl performed on stage with him, one of the songs being Rusty) leaving the Complex source, which is not clear as a reliable source, and does not provide significant coverage. jolielover♥talk 05:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  welp that's all i could find. im screwed brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 12:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pretty clear failure of WP:NSONG and/or WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 19:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lols this seems to happen everytime I create an article.

I can't see why it has to be deleted instantly rather then being edited until it applys with conditions.

your people's rules are crazy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booksandarticles (talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about whether or not the song is notable. It is not notable. No amount of editing can make a subject "notable". λ NegativeMP1 22:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Wikipedia isn't targeting you, it's just that there are quite a lot of guidelines and policies to adhere to. In terms of notability, the song does not meet the requirements (WP:NSONG). jolielover♥talk 03:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pretty notable. What makes Rusty any less notable then songs such as Gone, Gone /Thank You or Tamale? both of which count as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Booksandarticles (talk • contribs) 12:22, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't derived from opinions, there's a guideline in place for songs (WP:NSONG) and a quick google search finds hardly any sources on this song, only passing mentions of it in general news about the album/live performances. The difference in the other examples you mentioned is that they do appear to have significant coverage. Tamale, for example, got quick a lot due to its provocative lyrics and music video. Gone, Gone / Thank You also has some notability to have a page due to it charting in a few countries and earning some certifications. jolielover♥talk 15:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:19, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on the existing sources.
  • Complex has a paragraph of coverage, just barely significant IMO.
  • Consequence only mentions that the song was performed. Trivial coverage.
  • Billboard is an album review, which doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSONG.
  • Pitchfork, also an album review.
  • Rolling Stone, another album review.

With a single usable source (Complex), it doesn't pass NSONG. Please ping me if new sources show up. Astaire (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify and redirect to Wolf (Tyler, the Creator album). There is some coverage. Not enough for an article, as shown by the above commenters. Maybe it could be an article in the future if someone can find more coverage. In the meantime we can add some more content about the song into the article about the album. SK2242 (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KRQZ (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 station is a classic case of a rebroadcaster of national Christian radio networks, though it was recently sold from one to another. Unlike most, it once had some local programming, but the notability case is thin enough to suggest a redirect to ESNE Radio instead of the current content. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and California. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 2 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!} 01:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ESNE Radio: I suspect if there was enough significant coverage to justify retaining a separate article here (beyond the 2001 Santa Maria Times article), the nominator would not have taken this to AfD. That seems not to be the case; redirecting as an alternative to deletion may be the best that can be done here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANSER (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 article on a particularly important company, however, it has languished for eight years with only two marginal sources, a situation faced by many B2B and B2G firms. Unfortunately, a thorough WP:BEFORE search fails to find anything that could redeem it, however, this may be frustrated a bit by the non-unique name. I would particularly welcome anyone who can salvage this article and will happily withdraw this nomination if someone can but, I'm afraid, from where I'm sitting right now -- having exhausted a variety of avenues -- deletion is the only realistic outcome. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning keep, or move to draft. I was able to find a reasonable tertiary source (talking more about the president of the entity than the entity itself, but still supporting its history and notability) without too much difficulty on Newspapers.com, which returns enough hits to suggest that sufficient sourcing exists. BD2412 T 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also returned a lot of hits on newspapers.com. When I started to read individual articles, however, they were on things that were not this company. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If it's "a particularly important company" then it should never have been proposed for deletion! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I would love for us to have a policy or guideline called "Chetsford said it's important", as of now my subjective belief of a person or thing's importance using personal criteria of importance, unfortunately, do not trump our standards to determine WP:N. Perhaps one day that will change. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If this article has languished for years, what new sources have been found to establish notability now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There are a grand-total four sources about this individual all pertaining to this one incident. WP:BLP1E applies. Sohom (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are notable instances of prisoners with similar circumstances, but this case is not one of the notable ones. BD2412 T 00:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This case is notable as it directly led to the government reviewing guidance on how transgender prisoners should be accommodated within the prison estate and, thereafter, the opening of transgender wings within prisons 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:852:F46:1EE9:B4CA (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. 🦅White-tailed eagle^{Talk to the eagle}Stalking eagle 01:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. If there was no real WP:SIGCOV after 2018, I would agree w/ nom - but there was follow-up in 2023[40] as well as several opinion columns, like this one[41]. The case has been discussed in scholarship of varying calibers[42][43][44][45][46] and is mentioned in a law textbook (pg. 774) [47]. Prison policy in the UK for trans prisoners was also seemingly changed in response to the case[48], which I think could suggest WP:IMPACT. Zzz plant (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct. This case is quoted whenever discussion around self-id and single sex spaces for women are discussed. This can be an important article once it is fleshed out by more experienced editors than me2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:852:F46:1EE9:B4CA (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify This article is still under construction. There is not enough information here yet to show or determine notability. As an article just over one hour old, it could have been moved to draft space without being brought here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Just discovered that there is an article on this topic in the Spanish section of Wikipedia. 2A00:23C8:3D81:7801:852:F46:1EE9:B4CA (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zzz plant. The article badly needs expansion but the topic is inherently notable. Examining the WP:NEVENT criteria:
  • WP:LASTING: According to the BBC, the case influenced the UK to change its policy regarding transgender prisoners. [49]
  • WP:GEOSCOPE: The case received coverage from national media, including the Guardian [50], BBC [51], Times [52], Independent [53], Telegraph [54], and Sky News [55].
  • WP:DEPTH: In addition to straightforward reporting on the case, the Guardian published two in-depth articles about why the case happened [56] and its effects on the UK's transgender inmate policy [57].
  • WP:PERSISTENCE: As outlined by Zzz plant, the case has been taken up by multiple academic sources since White's 2018 conviction. The case has also received media coverage since then, e.g. [58] [59]
  • WP:DIVERSE: See WP:GEOSCOPE above.

Astaire (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. New article with no real content. I agree it is notable though. But there is nothing here and for a crime involving BLPs it is an issue in its current state. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Hopefully the article is much improved now. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is very much a WP:BLP1E case and the focus of this article is on their prison issues and activity rather than anything that affected the general public outside mentioning how they got to prison, and the categorization of Category:LGBTQ history in the United Kingdom is alarmingly WP:POINTy. Nathannah • 📮 00:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's not a BLP1E since the article is about the case, not the person, and the article now has a section titled "Aftermath and impact". The issue with the category also isn't a deletion rationale. Astaire (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article... is on the event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Astaire (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Much more sourcing has been added to signify notability, and the case seems to have had enough of an impact on government policy and public discourse to warrant an article. Tulzscha (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortadella sandwich (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)

Briefly: it's an unnecessary page. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. You can make a sandwich with sliced meat? Inconceivable! Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nominator has removed the sources I added to this unreferenced article, which keeps landing this article back in the unreferenced queue. I honestly don't care what happens to this article, but I do find it rather disingenous when people deliberately remove sources and content prior to nominating for deletion. If the sources are not convincing, you can have a discussion about how the sources and content are not very good, and then !vote to delete or merge or whatever. At the very least, if you've removed sources and stubbed the article, you should state clearly in your nomination that you did so and why; at least that way, it's transparent. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also...I see now that the same editor has nominated this article for both merging and deletion. So which is it? If you're proposing to merge the article, and it seems there is no opposition to your doing so, for an article that was essentially unreferenced for so many years, you could have gone ahead and just performed the merge. Don't bring it to AfD. But proposing this article for both at the same time seems like a waste of everyone's time. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]